




Class ACLS 


Book 


M 


GopigiitN 0 _ 

COJKMGIIT DEPOSIT. 






































V 




V 















•v* 





The Wanderer 

or 

Many Minds on Many Subjects 



The "Wanderer 

or 

Many Minds on Many Subjects 

COMPILED AND EDITED BY 

Mary Ethel McAuley 

WITH AN INTRODUCTION BY 

Col. Charles Alexander Rook 

President - Editor, The Pittsburgh Dispatch 








COPYRIGHT, 1920, BY 
BONI & LIVERIGHT, INC 


©CIA571573 

Printed in the United States of America 


JUL -3 1920 


t 


PREFACE 


Many men; many minds. History is a progression of 
minorities; the minority of to-day becoming the majority 
of to-morrow. Yet there is no delusion more deeply rooted 
than faith in the infallibility of the majority. Convention 
rules, and those that dare to differ are despised until they 
win enough to their way of thinking to become in turn 
the convention. If they never win enough, they are cranks; 
if they do, they are crusaders to be canonized until the 
next iconoclast overturns them. 

It has been said that “the minority is always right,” but 
that is conditional only on its being a minority. When it 
becomes a majority, it becomes conventional, suffers from 
dry rot, and thereby perishes. The best safeguard of democ¬ 
racy is the existence of a vigorous minority of criticism. 
Democracy is impossible without it, since otherwise there 
is no check on the majority, which tends to oppression and 
suppression, corruption and tyranny. 

There will never be a time when all men and women will 
think alike. Yet, too often, we proceed as though that 
were the aim of life. Propaganda and proselytism are 
directed to that end. If they could succeed, there would be 
an end to progress. Jefferson knew this when he said, 
“Error may be tolerated if reason is left free to combat it.” 
Ideas, however wrong-headed, however seemingly or ac¬ 
tually silly, cannot be exterminated by force. The thumb¬ 
screw and the rack, in their time, did proportionately as 
much to spread ideas as the printing press of to-day. On 
the contrary, if an idea is absurd, if a theory is patently 
unworkable, the surest way to destroy it is to uncover it in 
the broad light of day. Publicity, like sunshine, is a 

v 


PREFACE 


cleansing process, lighting the dark corners of men’s minds 
and letting in the purifying and healing air of reason. 

It was with some such general thought of giving tongue 
to the voiceless, of assuring freedom of expression to one 
and all, that The Pittsburg Dispatch opened its columns to 
“The Wanderer.” Questions of the hour, problems of the 
ages, were propounded and restated, and opinions asked 
for publication. The response was amazing. Doubtless 
the opportunity attracted many who had nothing to con¬ 
tribute but their own eccentricities of mind, but the most 
surprising feature was the discovery of so many with minds 
of their own and rare ability to express them. Their letters 
ranged from grandiose to gay, from chaos to conservatism. 
Never was such a conglomeration of thought. There was 
but one restriction, that the letters should be free from 
personalities, that they should deal with measures and 
methods and not with men. 

It was something, that had never been tried, and its suc¬ 
cess was immediate. The Wanderer was able to secure 
opinions from the greatest as well as the most obscure. 
The statesman appeared cheek by jowl in the column with 
the street peddler, the agnostic with the divine, the pro¬ 
letarian with the plutocrat. Of course, there could be no 
uniformity or standard, but from this mental melange the 
publishers have endeavored to extract the most representa¬ 
tive of every class on every subject discussed in this 
absolutely open forum for more than a year. 

The result may give the reader mental indigestion; but 
there can be no doubt that it will stir the imagination and 
stimulate the intellect. 

Col. Charles Alexander Rook, 
President-Editor, The Pittsburg Dispatch. 


vi 


CONTENTS 

PAGE 

Preface . v 

Can a Radical Be a Christian? . i 

Is Our Present System of Marriage Perfect? .... 7 

What Is One Hundred Per Cent Americanism? .... 11 

With What Language Did the Serpent Talk to Eve? . . 16 

Is Mars Inhabited?.22 

How Do You Class Voltaire?.27 

Do You Believe that Leon Trotzky Is Sincere? ... 32 

Is Liberty in America Dead?.38 

Should Railroads Be Operated on Tripartite Basis?. . 45 

What Is the Origin of Sin?.51 

Is the Strike an Antiquated Weapon for Modern Labor? . 56 

How Are Radicals Made? ..60 

What Is a Cure for Radicalism?.66 

Should Art Be Moral?.71 

What Was the Religion of Mark Twain?.74 

Are Thoughts Visible or Invisible?.79 

Should the Red Flag Be Prohibited?.84 

Have Dogs and Horses Souls?.90 

Are Chambers of Commerce and Boards of Trade Menaces 
to Democracy?.95 

What Is Your Interpretation of the Story of Balaam’s Ass? ioi 

Is It Necessary for Men to Wear Coats in Hot Weather, 
and Why Collars?.107 

Did Bacon Write Shakespeare? .m 

How Did Noah Get-the Animals into the Ark? . . . . ng 

Is There a Big Idea Behind the Little Theatres? . . . 120 

Should a Woman Have the Right to Propose? .... 127 

Is It Possible for the Dead to Materialize?.132 

Will We Know Each Other in Heaven?.137 

Should Charity Begin at Home?.141 

Who Is the More Valuable—an Idealist or a Practical 

Man?.146 

vii 




















via CONTENTS 

PAGE 

What Should Be the Attitude of the Church in the Present 

Industrial Crisis?. I 5 ° 

Is There an End to Space?.* 5 6 

Do Preachers Really Practice What They Preach? . . 160 

Should We Have Birth Control?. 166 

Has the War Proved Christianity a Success or a Failure? . 171 

How Can We Stabilize Our Foreign Exchanges? . . 176 

Is It Necessary to Study the Nude in Art?.182 

Should the Allies Withdraw Their Troops from Russia? . 186 

What Is Your Interpretation of Jonah and the Whale? . 191 

Is Private Property Secure? .i 94 

What Do You Think of the Zionist Movement? .... 199 

What Do You Believe Was the Beginning of the Universe? 204 

At What Age Is a Man Most Efficient?.209 

What Valuable Traits Have Our Aliens Given Toward 

Forming American Character?.213 

Has Christianity Abolished the Fear of Death? . . . 217 

Should Holland Give Up the Kaiser?.222 

“Christianity Hasn’t Failed. It Has Never Been Tried.’’ 

What Have We Had?.227 

Is the Photoplay Censor a Benefit or a Detriment? . . 234 

Have You Ever Lived Before?. 239 

Should We Adopt Simplified Spelling?.244 

Should the Standard of Morals for Men and Women Be 

Different?.248 

When Does Profit-Making Become Profiteering? ... 251 

Did St. Patrick Really Chase Snakes Out of Ireland? . . 255 

Have Chorus Girls Been Maligned?.258 

Is Lynching Ever Justifiable?.263 

Is the Mystic a Human Need?.266 

Should the Espionage Act Be Repealed?.270 

Should We Do Away with Zoological Gardens? . . . 275 

Should Foreign Representatives Be Exempt from Our 

Prohibition Laws?.280 

What Are the Causes of Strikes?.285 

Why Does a Dog Wag Its Tail?.288 

Are the Ministers More Muzzled than the Editors? . . 294 

Should Alien Radicals Be Deported?.300 



















CONTENTS 


ix 

PAGE 

Where Is the Kingdom of Heaven?.306 

What Is the “Tom” Mooney Case?.310 

Does Persecution Ever Stop Anything?.315 

What Is the Significance of the Labor Unrest? . . . .321 

Should a Conscientious Objector Be Condemned? . . . 326 

Should Tom Paine’s Books Be Excluded from Our Libraries? 332 

Should We Free All Political Prisoners?.336 

Who Is the Devil and Where Is He?.343 

Would George Sand Be Received in Genteel Society To-day? 347 
Is There Anything to Fear from an Open Field of Free Dis¬ 
cussion? .352 

Should America Be Used as an Asylum for Political Refu¬ 
gees of Other Countries?.357 

Should Church Property Be Exempt from Taxation? . . 360 

Should We Lift the Embargo on Russia?.365 

What Do You Think of “Billy” Sunday?.371 

What Woman Would Have Made the Best Wife for Henry 

VIII?. 376 

Were Adam and Eve Ever Married?.380 

Should Eugene Debs Be Freed from Prison?.383 

Should We Take Freud too Seriously?.387 

Are Capital and Labor Partners? ..392 

What Would You Like to Have for Christmas? .... 397 

Lines to Genevieve.403 

Rebirth.405 

Was Sir Roger Casement a Traitor?.410 

What Is the Difference Between the Democratic and 

Republican Parties?.416 

Was Tolstoi a Prophet?.423 

Will England Become a Labor Republic?.429 























or 


Many Minds on Many Subjects 


a 







/ 




THE WANDERER 


CAN A RADICAL BE A 
CHRISTIAN? 

“*Tis only little souls that lag behind their powers; 
great men all expend their fullest faculties in a great 
cause” 

—Ferdinand Lassalle. 
HENRY VAN DYKE. 

S URELY a Christian may be a radical of the right kind. 

But if he is a radical of the wrong kind he is a follower 
of anti-Christ. 

If he goes at the root of things, seeking to destroy the 
tree because he does not like ks shape or its fruit, seeking 
to overthrow law because it restrains his appetites and pas¬ 
sions, seeking to ruin government because it makes him 
uncomfortable, he cannot be a disciple of Christ, who said, 
“Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and 
unto God the things that are God’s.” The Bolshevist 
creed is anarchy and atheism. When a radical of that kind 
quotes Christ as his example he blasphemes. He commits 
the sin against the Holy Ghost. 

But the radical who goes to the root of things, who asks 
what they really mean, who seeks to find the deep causes 
of evils that afflict mankind, who wishes to apply the remedy 
not on the surface, but at the source, whose aim is not to 
tear down, but to nourish and build up—that man is a 

I 


THE WANDERER 


friend and follower of Christ, who said, “I am not come 
to destroy, but to fulfill.” 

REV. “GOLIGHTLY” MORRILL, Pastor People’s 
Churchy Minneapolis. 

The Redeemer was the greatest radical who ever lived, 
and no man should be called Christian who does not follow 
Christ’s footsteps. 

Radicalism is defined as “the doctrine of making reform 
in government, or in social conditions, by overturning and 
changing the existing state of things.” According to this 
definition Christ was a revolutionary agitator turning and 
overturning until what was wrong was right side up. His 
followers are to declare, define and defend what He stood 
for against the opposition of anything in business, society, 
religion or government. 

Christ used no infernal machine bomb posted from Hell, 
but a spiritual power of precept and example from Heaven, 
which exploded old ideas and theories, and crumbled the 
walls of mental, physical and spiritual slavery. It was the 
radical Christ who said, “Woe unto you, Scribes and Phari¬ 
sees, hypocrites! Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers! 
How can ye escape the damnation of hell ?” 

The demand of the hour is “smooth things.” We have 
doctors of divinity whose divinity should be doctored, and 
dudes, “dubs” and doctrinaires in the pulpit who, instead 
of startling and shaming their sinful congregation, put them 
to sleep with lullaby hymns and soporific sermons. 

A Christian pays no attention to the squatter claims of 
any press, preacher or politician who would muzzle him on 
any of the Ten Commandments, in the light of the Moun¬ 
tain Sermon. To the demand, “Mind your own business,” 
let the Christian reply, “I do, for Him who said, ‘Wist ye 
not that I must be about my Father’s business ?’ ” 

Let sycophantic and autocratic Europe wear muzzles, but. 


THE WANDERER 


let it be the glory of radical Christian Americanism to take 
its orders direct from God and Christ, and express them in 
free thought and speech according to the dictates of con¬ 
science. 

REV. E. L. POWELL, First Christian Church, Louisville. 

Can a radical be a Christian? The right sort of radical 
is the real representative of Jesus Christ. Curiously 
enough, I have just completed the reading of a little book 
by Henry Ward Beecher in which occurs this statement: 

“Christ was a sublime radical. ‘How dare you/ one 
would say to me, ‘apply such a term to Christ ?' ” 

Because my glorious Master has got used to wearing 
ignominious terms and any term of dignity that is made 
such by contempt of the higher classes against the lower, I 
put upon the brow of Christ. Another thorn, it may be, 
but it is one that brings blood for salvation, and I declare 
that Christ was the first and the sublime radical. 

Now also says the New Testament speaking of the coming 
of Christ: “The ax is laid unto the roots of the trees.” 
What is “radical” but a word derived from “radix” which 
means root? He was a root man. He came right at the 
root of the trees. 

A physician that instead of palliating a difficulty, deals 
sharply with the organic lesion, is a radical. In morals the 
man who does not attempt to smooth over the surface, but 
asks what is the fundamental cause of wrong, and then at¬ 
tacks that cause, is a radical; and from the days of Christ to 
this, the radicals have been the reformers, cursed while they 
lived, worshipped when they are dead—thorns in the side 
of parties and crucified by them, but held up as martyrs and 
heroes of their age by the next generation, who none the 
less crucify the men of their age who are like them. 

A radical is unquestionably the highest sort of Christian. 

3 


THE WANDERER 


REV. W. L. C. SAMSON, Ninth United Presbyterian 
Church, Pittsburg. 

“Radical,” as it is now being used, in connection with the 
I. W. W’s., Bolsheviks, labor agitators, Syndicalists, etc., my 
answer is: “He can be a Christian, if he repents, turns 
from his evil ways, trusts Christ to save him from his sins, 
strives to live soberly, righteously and godly, ceases being 
a hell-raiser and seeks the blessedness of being a peace¬ 
maker.” 

REV. JOHN ROYAL HARRIS, Director Department of 

Industrialism, National Reform Association, Pittsburg. 

Karl Marx, founder of Socialism, says in “Das Kapital,” 
“The root of the capitalistic system is in that old church su¬ 
perstition, God, and we can never have the socialistic state 
until we have atheism.” August Bebel says: “We aim 
in the domain of what is to-day called religion, at atheism.” 
One of the last Russian Bolshevik declarations is: “The 
family and the church are the two great enemies of hu¬ 
manity.” 

Circulars found when Attorney General Palmer's resi¬ 
dence was bombed said: “Do not say we are acting cow¬ 
ardly because we keep in hiding. There will have to be 
bloodshed; we will not dodge; there will have to be destruc¬ 
tion ; we will destroy.” Foster in his red book says: “The 
Syndicalist allows no consideration of ‘legality/ ‘religion/ 
‘patriotism/ ‘honor/ ‘duty/ to stand in the way of his adop¬ 
tion of effective tactics.” 

Representatives of Lenine in this country have these gen¬ 
eral instructions: “Agitation to be started with a view to 
stirring up international strife. All means to' be used to 
compromise prominent men in the countryattacks to be 
made on those in authority; agitation against the Govern- 

4 


THE WANDERER 


ment to be stirred up; strikes to be provoked; machines to 
be damaged; bridges, railroads, to be blown up; economic 
upset.” 

Classification of radicals makes it too precarious for me 
to say no radical can be a Christian. The brand practicing 
above ideas certainly cannot be until he regains his good 
sense and gets soundly converted. If he claims to be a 
Christian, while holding such views, many folks would say 
"It’s just some of that Syndicalist ‘possuming!’ ” 

DANIEL L. MARSH, Smithfield Methodist Episcopal 
Church, Pittsburg. 

That depends upon two things—what is meant by a Chris¬ 
tian and what is meant by a Radical? All things are rela¬ 
tive. To the Californian, Denver is east, and to the Bos¬ 
tonian, Pittsburg is west. It is even so in the world of 
religion and economics. 

The Christian who would measure up to the Beatitudes 
of Jesus would be very meek and mild; but the one who 
would follow the example of our Lord’s whole life will find 
Him pretty strenuous and even radical. How about His 
denouncing the scribes and Pharisees as: “Ye serpents, ye 
generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of 
hell ?” How about His upsetting the tables of certain graf¬ 
ters and thrashing them soundly with a scourge ? 

However, I suppose we are pretty generally agreed as to 
what constitutes a Christian, viz: One who has been con¬ 
verted ; whose whole life has been surrendered to Christ for 
Him to shape and mold and use as He shall choose; who 
earnestly strives to live the Christ-life. 

But what is a Radical? In some people’s minds a Rad¬ 
ical is any extremist. I heard one person declare the other 
day that “Judge Gary is a Radical, because he is an ex¬ 
tremist in enforcing the will of the bosses.” There are 
some people who dub all who do not agree with them as 

5 


THE WANDERER 

Radicals, and especially is that so to-day. A few years 
ago we had in America two general groups, stand-patters 
and progressives. To-day, if we would listen to some re¬ 
actionary folk, there are still only two groups—Americans 
and Radicals! 

Now, can a Christian be a Radical ? Undoubtedly he can, 
if his standard is Christ, and the conditions warrant it. 
John the Baptist dealt with root evils in his speech: “Even 
now the ax also lieth at the root of the trees; every tree, 
therefore, that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down 
and cast into the fire/ 1 (Luke iii 19.) 

Hippocrates (in “Aphorism”) declared that “Extreme 
remedies are very appropriate for extreme diseases.” And 
Shakespeare, in “Hamlet,” is sure that, 

“Diseases desperate grown 

By desperate appliances are relieved or not at all.” 

We do not doubt the Christianity of Savonarola, or John 
Huss, or Martin Luther, and yet they were Radicals. We 
do not doubt the Christianity of the “Independents” out of 
which the Pilgrim Fathers came, and yet Macaulay says: 
“In politics, they were, to use the phrase of their time, 
Root and Branch Men,” or, to use the kindred phrase of 
our own, “Radicals.” 

The leaders of our American Revolutionary War were 
called Radicals. Thus, Burke, in speaking of the authority 
of the Crown of England, says: “The most determined ex¬ 
ertions of that authority, against them, only showed their 
radical independence.” Yet we do not call them un-Chris¬ 
tian for that reason. 

However, some people are making Radicals when they 
think they are doing the opposite. Let me illustrate by a 
quotation from Green’s Short History of the English Peo¬ 
ple (Vol. II, Page 484) : “The steady opposition of the Ad¬ 
ministration to any project of political progress created a 
dangerous irritation which brought to the front men whose 

6 


THE WANDERER 


demand for a 'radical reform* in English institutions, won 
them the same of Radicals, and drove more violent agitators 
into treasonable disaffection and silly plots.” 


IS OUR PRESENT SYSTEM OF 
MARRIAGE PERFECT? 

On the 25th of December , 1665, Samuel Pepys made 
this entry in his diary: “To church in the morning , and 
there saw a wedding in the churchy which 1 have not 
seen many a day; and the young people so merry one 
with the other; and strange to see what delight we 
married people have to see these poor fools decoyed 
into our condition, every man and woman gazing at 
them smiling ” 

ANNE HILLSMAYDE. 

O UR present matrimonial system brings to mind the 
colored man’s views on aerial war service: “That glory 
may be all right, but that death is so permanent.” And 
that is one of the troubles with matrimony—the exchange 
desk is so expensive and so difficult to reach. A bargain 
never looks so attractive as when three or four other 
women are reaching for it and you happen to be the lucky 
one who gets it. But once you have it in your hands and 
begin to look it over, you are apt to examine the price tag 
to see if it really has been marked down, and then you hunt 
for a clerk to ascertain whether or not you have the privi¬ 
lege of exchanging the article or getting your money back 
should you change your mind as to its desirability after 
reaching home. 

Although trial marriages may not be feasible, it does seem 
a pity that some method cannot be devised whereby engaged 
couples would be obliged to spend several hours a day, for 

7 


THE WANDERER 

a fairly lengthy period, in each other’s company. While 
this plan might prevent many contemplated marriages, those 
which did result would probably prove both permanent and 
happy. The old adage “Familiarity breeds contempt” does 
not apply to the higher, types of humanity, and it is these 
which should be perpetuated. 

THOMAS K. JOHNSON. 

To ask this question and to attempt to discuss it is almost 
an insult to the Almighty. It is justified only for the sake 
of correcting the false and dangerous ideas which some 
misguided people are so shamelessly promulgating by con¬ 
tinually raising such questions. Many ages ago God laid 
down the laws of marriage because He knew what was best 
for man, and we are told “what God hath joined together 
let no man put asunder.” Nowadays there are some people 
who think they know better than God what is best for the 
human race. If the “present system of marriage” seems 
“imperfect” to them, let them look well into the inner re¬ 
cesses of their own hearts—for it is there that the imper¬ 
fection lies. It is lustful wishes, secret infidelity, irrespon¬ 
sible character, perhaps not expressed in overt acts, but 
in hidden contemplation and desire—it is chiefly these things 
which prompt dissatisfaction with the moral law. Of 
course there are a few honest, though mistaken people who 
without knowing it are playing the game of these vile sin¬ 
ners by harping on the question. 

If there is anything wrong with the present system of 
marriage, it is that the civil law has become too lenient in the 
matter of divorce, thus departing from the divine law. Let 
husband and wife who find themselves “incompatible” be 
forced to stay together and pay the penalty for their care¬ 
lessness in selecting each other; it will do them good and 
eventually cure their incompatibility. 

8 


THE WANDERER 


AUSTIN D. WILLIAMSON. 

The marriage system is an evolution. The almost uni¬ 
versal prevalence of monogamy among highly civilized peo¬ 
ples seems to indicate that it is a much better system than 
polygamy, which has existed in earlier times, and still ex¬ 
ists, among many other peoples. It seems to be the most 
just and democratic system, and also to offer the best way 
of rearing children. Yet we have no guarantee that it has 
reached its highest stage of perfection. 

In the Middle Ages and in some countries to-day mar¬ 
riage is chiefly a matter of custom and business arrange¬ 
ments by the parents. In such cases love very often 
finds itself in some side affair outside of wedlock rather 
than in marriage itself. Modern Anglo-Saxon ideas of free 
choice of mate according to the sentiment of romantic love 
are a comparatively new thing in the world, and quite an 
innovation on the religious traditions from which we are 
supposed to get our ethics of marriage. 

We often hear from moral educators that persons should 
not marry until they know each other so well that they are 
certain of their ability to get along together. Then we 
hear the next moment that persons cannot really know each 
other until they have lived together for a time. How solve 
this dilemma? Does it mean that trial marriages would 
make eventually for greater happiness in married life? 

These questions cannot be answered dogmatically. Nei¬ 
ther the religious dogmatist who says God has settled it all 
in advance, nor the radical who argues that present mar¬ 
riage is “bourgeois” and based on the iniquity of private 
property, and therefore wrong, can solve the problem. Only 
patient and fearless study and, possibly, serious experiment 
will solve it. 


9 


THE WANDERER 


MARY B. MARRIOTT. 

Who is it has said “Marriage is the refuge of the incom¬ 
petent woman?” That statement, in my mind, though not 
literally true, contains the germ of the real problem of to¬ 
day in relation to our marriage system. Disregarding the 
problem of divorce as a problem of the successful termina¬ 
tion of the state of allegiance which has become intolerable 
(which problem in itself is not so much a problem of the 
marriage system itself as a defect in the method of selec¬ 
tion of life partnership), I think the real question at issue 
is: “How are we going to make marriage a social institu¬ 
tion as desirable for women as for men ?” As it exists to¬ 
day men have everything to gain and little to lose. This is 
evidenced by the almost universal lack of desire among 
men to exchange places with their wives, if such a thing 
were possible. Men would not be content with mere self¬ 
reproduction or domestic labor in the home, “that little 
ganglion of aborted economic processes.” To a man this 
would mean stagnation of his larger nature, the impulse 
towards self-realization, towards a career upon which his 
fellowmen will set the seal of approval. 

Will society find a way for woman to answer the bio¬ 
logical imperative and still find self-realization in achieve¬ 
ment? This in my opinion would correct the hideous im¬ 
perfection of the present day marriage system. 

LEE WILLIAMS. 

Just as there are birds that mate and are constant, so 
there are human beings who mate and “marriages that are 
made in heaven”; but just as there are other birds that are 
promiscuous, so are there human beings who find monog¬ 
amy a chain. The ideal political state is anarchy, that is, 
one does what is right not because of the force of irian- 

io 


THE WANDERER 


made laws, but governs his conduct according to his ideals. 
The ideal relation between the sexes is that of free love, 
where no rules or limitations imposed from outside force 
those whose interest and desires are no longer congenial to 
continue in unhappiness a relation begun in joy. 

Free love is not the legalized indulgence of passion—that 
we have now—but is rather the recognition that no one may 
justly demand more than he is ready to give. It stands to 
reason that such a state would make for permanence of the 
marriage relation, since favor may not be gained once for 
all, but must be guarded and maintained, for it is a law of 
human action that what is difficult to gain or to keep is 
valued, and what cannot be lost may be neglected or ignored. 


WHAT IS 100 PER CENT 
AMERICANISM? 

“Where liberty dwells , there is my country” 

—Benjamin Franklin. 

FRANCIS FISHER KANE, Recently United States At¬ 
torney, Eastern District of Pennsylvania. 

I CAN answer your question in one word—Liberalism. 
Anything else is un-American at the present time. 

ALLAN L. BENSON, Editor of Reconstruction. 

My idea of “ioo per cent Americanism” would be an ioo 
per cent practice of the Golden Rule both in our domestic 
and international relationship. 

JOSEPH B. ELY. 

This land of ours was settled by men of strong and 
rugged beliefs as to government, religion and social obli- 

II 


THE WANDERER 

gations. The 100 per cent American cherishes the same 
ideals. 

He stands for constitutional government, progressive by 
constitutional means. God-fearing, he recognizes at all 
times, everywhere, his duties and obligations to society and 
the State. 

He believes, without question, in America’s greatness. 

He has an abiding faith in her power. 

He desires that her conscience and heart shall forever 
respond to the needy and oppressed. 

His contentment is in unremitting toil and thrift, his hap¬ 
piness in love of home and the prosperity of his country. 

DR. WILL C. CHAPPELL, Pittsburg Baptist 
Association. 

A real American is one who is loyal to the distinctive 
ideals and to the spirit of America, so ioo per cent Ameri¬ 
canism is ioo per cent allegiance to these ideals and this 
spirit. A nominal American is one whose parents were 
Americans, or one who has been naturalized. To vote, to 
own property, to hold office, to speak English, to have more 
or less education, to have had ancestors in this country for 
generations, are the nominal tests of Americanism. In 
truth a person may possess all these qualifications and be 
un-American to the core, for he might be antagonistic to 
those ideals that make America what she is. 

Americanism is attitude toward American ideals in the 
recesses of a man’s life and not of external tests. The 
spirit of America calls for a ioo per cent application of the 
principles of democracy to ioo per cent of life. To believe 
in autocracy in industry or any part of our Government, 
special privilege for any class, denial of full American 
rights to any race or to the Negro, is to be fundamentally 
un-American. Nor does it matter who or what the person 
holding such ideals is. He may be holding high office and 

12 


THE WANDERER 


even be fighting alienism, and while so doing feel class 
hatred, racial prejudice, or be denying the right of free 
speech and peaceable assemblage. It is entirely within the 
range of possibility that an immigrant who has been here 
for only three months is far nearer being ioo per cent 
American than another whose ancestors came over in the 
Mayflower. While the one may not be able to speak Eng¬ 
lish and is largely ignorant of our customs, he is saturated 
with the spirit and genius of America; the other is nomi¬ 
nally American, yet hostile in his heart to the spirit and 
genius of America. 

It is only when Americanism is defined in this vital way 
that the superficial definitions and tests which have in¬ 
cluded much that is un-American and often developed ten¬ 
dencies and outbreaks and official acts that have outraged 
ioo per cent Americanism, will be overcome. The sooner 
the superficial and untrue period of Pharisaical American¬ 
ism through which we have been passing for the past year 
is over, the sooner will ioo per cent Americanism be clearly 
seen and really practiced. 

J. FIELDING. 

Americanism is a term used by every interest to define 
its own program. The advocate of universal military train¬ 
ing conceives it to be a Prussian military system. The ioo 
per cent profiteer believes it to be a calm submission to ex¬ 
tortion to keep business prosperous. The politician finds 
it is the great American institution of the ballot, without 
thought of what is done with the ballot after it gets put 
into the box. Certain Government officials consider it 
governmental paternalism. 

A group of men came together in 1776 to define Ameri¬ 
canism. The result was the Declaration of Independence. 
In Philadelphia, in 1917, a police judge gave a man 30 days 
for distributing copies of that document, defining it as sedi- 

13 


THE WANDERER 


tious literature. It was seditious to George III. It still is 
to other Georges. It says men are created free and equal. 
That is Americanism until the income tax reports are filed. 
It says people have the right to change their form of gov¬ 
ernment. That is Americanism until five Socialists are 
elected to the New York Legislature. 

The Constitution of the United States was likewise highly 
American, at least in the eighteenth century. It says Con¬ 
gress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or 
of the right of the people peaceably to assemble. 

The Americanism we have in this country now, refined 
in the light of history, is suppressed. In its place we have 
a kind of misshapen Americanism constructed by profiteers 
and politicians. It is defined to be the spirit that actuates 
toleration of profiteering, a military machine, mob violence 
and perpetuation of political iniquity. 

MICHAEL GALVIN. 

All men who work for a living in this country are ioo 
per cent Americans. All men who do not work should be 
thankful they are living. 

Place our Congressmen and Senators in the laboring 
man's environment, and we would have a revolution. Much 
of the unrest we have now is in the heads of the politicians 
who have a guilty conscience, and through the conscription 
law have found out how easy it is to manage a class who 
read nothing but baseball and prize-fighting. Gompers’ op¬ 
position to political action has been one cause for radicalism, 
but I do not think the American workingman will stand 
for any “ism,” if they can possibly get justice, and they will 
never get anything by strikes, in which both sides lose and 
the public also. 

The mill men get high wages now, but the higher the 
wages, the fatter the profiteer’s bankroll. This is surely 
proof that strikes for higher wages are foolish. Now a 

14 


THE WANDERER 


workman can be a real, live ioo per cent American, vote on 
election day, not for the good fellow, but for the honest 
fellow, no matter what party. 

See your man and tell him what you want. The business 
man always does this. Never let a man who runs a church 
tell you what to do. Try to make a heaven here for your 
wife and family, and if there is one you will go there when 
you die. 

WILLIAM OAKLEY. 

The first principle of ioo per cent Americanism is loyalty 
to our country through thick or thin, as Stephen Decatur 
said, “May she always be in the right, but our country, right 
or wrong.” 

The second principle of ioo per cent Americanism is 
respect to our flag. It should be our most sacred possession. 
As John A. Dix said in 1861, “If anyone attempts to haul 
down the American flag, shoot him on the spot.” 

The third principle of ioo per cent Americanism should 
be to back up the President whether you entirely agree with 
him or not. A President of the United States is a man who 
has been elected by the people, not a hereditary king, and 
he should be honored as such. Daniel Webster said in his 
Bunker Hill oration, “Let our object be our country, our 
whole country, and nothing but our country.” This, of 
course, includes our President. 

The fourth principle of ioo per cent Americanism should 
be the wish to help our soldiers, both at the time of war 
and after the war, and it is the duty of every true American 
to be interested in the American Legion. 

The fifth principle of ioo per cent Americanism should 
be for every American citizen to buy bonds and thrift stamps 
to fullest capacity, and to assist in all the greater move¬ 
ments like the Red Cross, Y. M. C. A. and Inter-Church 
World Movement. 

The last principle of ioo per cent Americanism and not 
IS 


THE WANDERER 


the least by any means, should be to try to discourage rad¬ 
ical movements, by peaceful means if possible, and if not 
by peaceful means—by force. 


WITH WHAT LANGUAGE DID 
THE SERPENT TALK TO EVE? 


Eve thus in answer spake: “What may this mean? 
language of man , pronounced by tongue of brute, and 
human sense expressed! The first, at least, of these, 
I thought denied to beasts , whom God, on their creation- 
day, created mute to all articulate sound.” 

—Milton's “Paradise Lost.” 


FRED STONE. 


T HE serpent spoke Italian. But I can't tell why. In¬ 
quiries must be made in person. 


B. L. ULLMAN, State University of Iowa, Iowa City. 

Never having engaged in conversation with a snake, I am 
unable to answer the question from first-hand information, 
but the following observations are offered for what they are 
worth: 

Since Eve had never seen or talked with any person ex¬ 
cept Adam at the time that the serpent opened conversation 
with her, she could understand only one language, the one 
in which she conversed with Adam. Therefore the lan¬ 
guage which the serpent must have used to make himself 
understood was the one which Adam and Eve habitually 
used in their daily intercourse, and that is another puzzle. 
Possibly the zoologists can help answer by consideration of 
the sounds serpents can make. 

In beginning the investigation it might be assumed that 
16 


THE WANDERER 


the language in question must have made much use of the 
hissing sound, so suggestive of snakes. In fact, the shape 
of the letter “S” is serpentine. It might not be amiss to 
put a promising young student of languages to work exam¬ 
ining, let us say, 1,000 running feet of words in every 
known tongue for the percentage of hissing sounds in it. 
The language having the largest average is very probably 
the one which the serpent used. Another method would 
be to keep trying various languages on a snake until it re¬ 
sponded. So important a piece of research should not be 
neglected. Without doubt, a large sum of money could 
easily be collected to prosecute further investigations. 

Can not some of the men who used to be on familiar 
terms with snakes, seeing them every day or so, that is, 
previous to July i, tell? 

W. G. BOWDOTN, Art Critic, New York World 

The question opens up a fruitful and practically bound¬ 
less field for speculation. The event being prehistoric and 
ante-dating the deluge, there, of course, remains no docu¬ 
mentary record to which reference can now be made. The 
conversational occurrence of Biblical record also took place 
long before the confusion of tongues at Babel, so that we are 
more than justified in assuming it to have been the primi¬ 
tive and universal language. The post facto cursing of the 
serpent in the words, “upon thy belly shalt thou go all the 
days of thy life,” would seem to lend color to the theory 
that the tempter serpent was at the time endowed with legs 
and doubtless other human attributes, including the power 
of speech. The rudimentary legs developed by the dissec¬ 
tion of modern snakes lends at least partial confirmation to 
such a theory. 

The assumption again of the form of a serpent on the 
part of the devil himself would by no means destroy his 
power of speech, and there you are. The conversation be- 

17 


THE WANDERER 


tween the woman and the serpent was thus a mere incident 
and utterly lacks the wonder of understanding the language 
of birds and reptiles that was subsequently vouchsafed to 
King Solomon as a part of his monumental wisdom that 
astonished the Queen of Sheba. 

W. H. COHN. 

Not believing the tale of the serpent talking to Eve, it 
would ill become me to say what language it was. The 
story of Eve and the serpent to me is allegorical, used orig¬ 
inally for illustrating that man was endowed with power to 
discern good from evil and that he himself must master his 
inclination of overcoming. Because of the seeming ease of 
doing so, the story, of course, says the serpent tempted 
Eve, but I am of the belief the serpent in this case was the 
mind, the conscience, or what one wishes to call it, in Eve's 
make-up, and the language was the one Eve used in talking 
to her Adam. 

W. W. MORRISON. 

According to II Cor., 11-2, the serpent beguiled Eve with 
his subtlety. The only discernible thing of that nature 
about a snake is his glide or wiggle, foundation of our mod¬ 
ern shimmy, and called in Eve’s time the paradise puzzle. 
This shimmy or puzzle is best translated into talkable Eng¬ 
lish by the use of the wig-wag, or flim-flam method. As 
this happened before the advent of politicians and prof¬ 
iteers, the latter method was little known at that time, and 
all the serpents used the plain, open wig-wag. As an ex¬ 
ample: When the serpent wiggled (Gen. 3-4) it looked 
something like this: A wig to the right and a wag to the 
left. Repeated, then reversed. Repeat the reverse, then re¬ 
verse the repeat, omit the wig and double the wag. (Silly way 
to carry on a conversation, isn’t it ?) For the edification of 
those who have not gotten that far along with their Bible 


THE WANDERER 

reading, the free translation is, “take a chance, it won’t kill 
you!” 

Now, the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the 
field (Gen. 3-1), and Eve had to do some tall wig-wagging 
to make herself heard. The briefness of their conversation 
proves that she found some difficulty in clearly expressing 
herself in his elastic language. Many of our modern Eves 
would have talked that snake to death, made him so 
ashamed of his interpretative dancing subtlety that he would 
never, have said anything about the pippin. 

Too bad we haven’t a few serpents on hand this fall to 
point out the unprotected apple, as the home consumption 
thing is a big problem for the average drinker and a big 
joke for the average thinker. 

SELDOM GOOD. 

One does not need to be overly bright to know that our 
greatest scientists (of the conventional, theological kind, of 
course) are unanimous in their conclusion that the old ser¬ 
pent could use but one language in his nefarious seduction 
of our angelic, maternal parent. Many there be who still 
doubt the Bible story of the old serpent’s lingual ability, 
but such Schizomycetes are endemic to the human family 
and must be tolerated by those of us possessing sufficient 
intelligence to digest the ponderous knowledge our leading 
and distinguished scholars thrust upon us in their com¬ 
mendable endeavor to reclaim the wicked world to the 
straight and narrow path of rectitude and virtue. 

The serpent is by no means the only animal who pos¬ 
sessed, and who still possesses the power of speech. How 
many are there in this world who are familiar with “the 
loquacious ass,” that used to hold converse with his owner, 
Mr. Balaam? Of course, this was an incident of the long 
ago; but so also was the incident of the creation of the 
world and its stocking-up by a similar act of creation by the 

19 


THE WANDERER 


Deity. To become a trifle more modern, do you recall the 
famous poem, “The Raven,” by Edgar Allan Poe, and how 
it sat upon the bust of some distinguished gentleman, with 
an unpronounceable name, and talked to Poe until he de¬ 
veloped a fine attack of delirium tremens? 

A step further in modernity: How about the polly par¬ 
rot? You all know the line of gab he can hand out upon 
occasions. Of course, we all know some skeptics still ex¬ 
ist who maintain that the parrot’s ability to talk is merely 
the ability to imitate the sounds of the human voice, as well 
as other noises. Isn’t it just too bad we must be constantly 
annoyed by these pestiferous disbelievers in things meta¬ 
psychic ? 

But, to return to the main question. It has been clearly 
established by such a qualified authority, one who is in very 
close communion with the creator of things, as the Rev. Dr. 
William Anaesthesia Sunday, that the language used by 
the slimy serpent in its beguiling and defiling of our mother 
Eve, was none other than “the German language.” 

WALTER THOMPSON. 

The original language was not the growth of a mere fac¬ 
ulty of speech in man, but a creation and a gift from God. 
Adam and Eve knew when created how to converse with 
God and with each other. The first natural supposition 
would be that this language was Hebrew, but the general 
belief is that Hebrew was one of the languages created 
when God miraculously confounded the language of the 
Cushite rebels at Babel, and the people of the earth were 
scattered into families of different tongues. There are now 
several hundreds of languages upon the earth, and infidels 
have taken occasion to discredit the Bible doctrine of the 
unity of the human race. 

The fact that the serpent could talk is not strange to one 
who believes in the many miracles of the Bible, and then 

20 


THE WANDERER 


we know the voice that came from the serpent was merely 
the voice of the devil being transmitted through the body 
of the serpent. The language was probably one of the old 
Semitic tongues and he probably used his tail to make ges¬ 
tures. In all probability his words were not spoken as 
clearly as spoken by the human voice. 

WALLACE BERLIN. 

One of the most instructive lectures of John Tyndall was 
on “The Scientific Use of the Imagination,” in which he 
proved by example that many discoveries of great value 
had been made by pursuing the rigorous methods of science, 
combined with the play of the imaginative faculties. By 
this dual process I have reached the conclusion that the 
mother tongue of the serpent in his flirtatious converse with 
Eve in the Garden was a kind of wigwagging, perhaps 
mainly executed with his tail, coupled in the more emotional 
or tense passages with contortions, writhings, wriggling, 
twisting of his body. This deduction is not at all impaired 
because the serpent was the most subtle of the beasts of 
the field nor that the curse imposed on him thereafter was 
to go on his belly. 

Of all the various kinds of nature worship in the past 
that of Zoolatry is the most persistent. The serpent among 
his devotees has no traditional repulsion, but is the god of 
wisdom, of healing, of having mantic power to foretell 
events, or he might be the receptacle of some ancestor’s soul 
on its way, not to Mandalay, but through the stages of trans¬ 
migration. In the sixth century there was a Gnostic sect 
called Ophites, named from the Green Ophis, a serpent. 
They believed the serpent that tempted Eve and introduced 
“knowledge” into the world was a great benefactor of the 
human race. They ascribed to the snake not articulate 
language, but some prophetic power expressed by change 
of hues, motions of his erect body, standing on hinder legs. 

21 


THE WANDERER 


IS MARS INHABITED? 

“Indeed, there will be no more Martians in Mars by 
that time; they are near the end of their lease; all good 
Martians will have gone to Venus, let us hope, if not to 
the sun itself” 

—George Du Maurier in The Martian. 

DR. JOHN A. BRASHEAR. 

I S Mars inhabited ?” has been replied to a thousand 
times and yet remains an enigma. The principal ex¬ 
ponent of the theory that Mars is inhabited was Professor 
Lowell of Lowell Observatory, Flagstaff, Ariz. He was a 
firm believer that the so-called canals or markings on Mars 
are the work of human hands and his book on Mars de¬ 
votes many pages to the theory that human life may be pos¬ 
sible upon that planet. 

Let me say that Professor Langley’s investigations on 
the problem of organic life on any planet may be settled 
upon this hypothesis; namely, given a planet with an inter¬ 
nal heat storage similar to that of the earth and with an 
atmosphere similar to our own earth, with moisture such as 
we have, organic life may be, and likely is, possible. Now, 
let us take Mars: There is no doubt there is snow, or some¬ 
thing of a similar character, in the winter of Mars, on its 
North and South Polar regions, and that snow extends 
down, let us say, in the North, to a similar latitude on Mars 
to that of New York on our own earth, and lies there until 
the warmth of the sun in summer time of Mars melts it 
away toward the North Pole. I have watched the almost en¬ 
tire disappearance of the so-called snow-caps on Mars to¬ 
ward the end of its long summer, for, be not forgetful that 

22 


THE WANDERER 


the seasons are twice as long as our own. My good friend 
Keeler has seen appearances which were evidently cloud 
forms and those, with the melted snow, give evidence of wa¬ 
ter on the planet. 

Now comes the crucial test, the atmosphere: We know, 
without any doubt whatever, that it is the earth’s atmos¬ 
phere which acts like a blanket and conserves the heat of 
the sun, just as when we get into bed on a winter’s night, 
we draw the covers up over us—not because there is any 
heat in the covers, but because they are so constituted as to 
conserve the heat of the body and keep it there. Nov/, 
as this atmosphere gets thinner it conserves less and less 
of the energy of the radiant sun, so when we get to the 
top of the Alps, or the Apennines, or the still higher Hima¬ 
layas, the snow never melts because the atmosphere there is 
so thin that it does not conserve the radiant energy of the 
sun sufficiently to melt it, and yet we know that in the day¬ 
time the tops of these mountains are nearer to the sun than 
the valleys. 

Now the question comes as to the atmosphere of Mars. 
I would say that on the top of the Himalayas there is at 
least one-fourth of the earth’s atmosphere and yet the cold 
air is perpetual and vegetation impossible. Now, upon the 
planet Mars, it is estimated, there is only one-seventh of the 
earth’s atmosphere by which it may conserve the heat of 
the sun. You can readily make your own deductions. 

WILLIAM H. PICKERING, Harvard Astronomical Sta¬ 
tion, Mandeville, Jamaica, B. W. I. 

The answer to this question depends somewhat on what 
we mean by the word “inhabited.” If we mean is there 
life there, the reply is unquestionably yes—vegetable life. 
With the melting of the polar snows in the springtime we 
can watch it clear off, turn green for a while, then gray, 

23 


THE WANDERER 


and with the coming of the autumn frosts parts of it finally 
turn yellow and disappear. In the summer time we can 
see the so-called desert regions turn from red to yellow, 
and in the late summer turn back again to red. We can 
watch the coming of the early snowfalls, see clouds rising 
from the marshes, detect occasional floods in the spring¬ 
time, and even form an estimate of the velocity of the Mar¬ 
tian winds. 

If we mean is there animal life on Mars, we have on the 
other hand no information whatever. One hundred years 
ago a Martian astronomer, if gifted with our eyesight and 
possessing one of the larger telescopes might, with great 
care, have detected the advance of one of our great herds 
of buffalo across the prairies, or the flight of one of our 
flocks of passenger pigeons. Both of these creatures now 
are, for astronomical purposes, practically extinct. Nothing 
of the sort has ever been seen upon Mars. 

If we mean human life, the Martian astronomer certainly 
would not be able to detect any of the works of man. We 
see the so-called canals of Mars, clearly resembling those 
on the moon. If one is artificial, it is likely that the other 
is also. What they are we do not know, but we are now 
endeavoring to find out. Of only one thing in regard to 
them are we certain, and that is that they are not ditches 
filled with water. 

REV. W. E. GLANVILLE, Ph. D., Baltimore, Md., Mem¬ 
ber of the French, British and American Astronomical 
Societies. 

Whether Mars is inhabited depends on the prior question 
as to whether Mars is inhabitable. Life is governed by en¬ 
vironment. By inhabited we understand inhabited by self- 
conscious, intelligent beings. The late Prof. Percival Low- 

24 


THE WANDERER 


ell, Flagstaff, Ariz., by his vivid imagination and facile pen 
gave currency twenty-five years ago to the idea that Mars 
was inhabited by a race older than and superior in intelli¬ 
gence to human beings. Briefly stated, Dr. Lowell’s theory 
was that Mars is an older planet than the earth, that it is 
reaching the dead-cold condition of the moon, and that the 
remaining Martians are making a herculean struggle against 
approaching extinction. The periodical melting of the polar 
caps of Mars led Dr. Lowell to the conclusion that certain 
markings on the planet’s surface indicated an extensive 
canal system constructed by the Martians for irrigation pur¬ 
poses, and that the dots observable at the intersection of the 
canals were oases. 

Popular imagination was fascinated by the Lowellian 
theory and newspaper and magazine articles gave it wide 
publicity. Thence ensued discussion of the feasibility of 
communicating with the alleged Martians. Geometrical 
symbols were suggested as an appropriate means of com¬ 
munication. So recently as last August a news story was 
circulated to the effect that Prof. Todd, Amherst College, 
intended to establish communication with Mars from Omaha 
—though why Omaha rather than Timbuctoo, or the North 
Pole, should be selected for this distinction has not been 
disclosed. The value of the Lowellian theory may be tested 
as follows: 

1. No one questions Dr. Lowell’s painstaking observa¬ 
tions in the excellent atmospheric conditions of Arizona. 
But observation is one thing; interpretation is another. 

2. The distance of Mars from the sun (roughly 45 
millions of miles farther away than the earth) is such that 
the amount of the solar light and heat received by Mars is 
less than one-half of that received by the earth. 

3. Mars being a smaller planet than the earth, its inter¬ 
nal heat is considerably less than that of the earth. 

25 


THE WANDERER 


4. The conclusion is that existence of a race of beings 
on Mars in any degree like human beings is extremely im¬ 
probable, because the physical conditions essential to human 
life as we know it are absent. 

5. Finally, so far as the inhabitability of other worlds 
is concerned, it may be said that within the limits of the 
solar system no other world is adapted to support life as 
we know it, except our own earth. 

GEORGE H. LEPPER. 

During the last three decades there has been a vast deal 
of superfluous argument on this question, for it is suscepti¬ 
ble of a simple, decisive answer, and it has been so answered 
times without number. We have only to ask ourselves: 
What would be the effect upon terrestrial animal and plant 
life (the only sort we have a right to consider) should the 
earth gradually creep outward to Mars' solar distance and 
there follow that planet round and round in his orbit for, 
say, a million years? 

Were the sun to lose all its heat, its temperature would 
fall to or near absolute zero, or —461 degrees Fahrenheit, 
and so, incidentally, would the surface temperature of both 
Mars and the earth. Assuming the average annual tempera¬ 
ture at the latter's equator to be 100 degrees, it follows that 
the solar radiation received in that region is responsible for 
a total rise of 561 degrees. Now Mars, being as we know 
half again as far from the common source of heat, receives 
only 4/9 as much warmth as the earth, from which it clearly 
follows that the temperature of this torrid (?) zone can 
scarcely exceed —213 degrees or, what is the same thing, 
2 45 degrees below our freezing point of water. 

In a word, Mars is not inhabited because it is plainly not 
habitable. 


26 


THE WANDERER 


HOW DO YOU CLASS VOLTAIRE? 

“Every philosopher is a cousin to an atheist ” 

—Alfred de Musset. 

GEORGE M’LEAN HARPER, Princeton University. 

T HE best French judgment places Voltaire among the 
three or four greatest writers his country has pro¬ 
duced. Although he is not supreme in any one of the 
forms of literature, drama, poetry, history, criticism, prose 
fiction, letter-writings, he is so eminent in all and the amount 
of excellent work he did is so vast, that he bears much the 
same relation to his age that Cicero bore to the age of the 
Roman Republic. He was its representative man of let¬ 
ters. 

His versatility and energy were unsurpassed. His prose 
style is a perfect medium of communication, clear, simple 
and rapid. His wit and good sense make every one of his 
pages interesting, and he had a gift for ordering and sim¬ 
plifying his material. The world owes him veneration for 
his life-long war against superstition, cruelty and pompous 
fraud. 

He was a keen fighter and had the courage and resource¬ 
fulness to fight alone. It was due to him, more than to any 
one else, that the practice of torturing men and women for 
their religious opinions, breaking their bones and burning 
their bodies, was abandoned in France. As his poem on 
the Lisbon earthquake attests, he was a religious man, 
though the world hardly gives him credit for the sincerity 
and depth of his faith. 

He hated theology and the Christian church, but believed 
in humanity and in some principle of life which he called 
God. He admired English liberty and was a link between 

27 


THE WANDERER 


the advanced political thinkers of England and France. He 
cleared the path for the French Revolution. 

MARSHALL J. GAUVIN. 

Like a lofty mountain peak clad with the glory of eternal 
snow, Voltaire towers amidst modern civilization, defying 
the impotent lightning of theological hate and eliciting the 
admiration of those who love the heroic and sublime. He 
was the intellectual monarch of the eighteenth century and 
his mighty brain and ardent heart toiled for human good. 

He flayed the corrupt government and persecuting church 
of France in the interest of humanity, and inflicted the most 
deadly of blows to the twin curses—tyranny and supersti¬ 
tion. Parton, his standard biographer, says he was “the 
most extraordinary of Frenchmen, and one of the most ex¬ 
traordinary of human beings.” 

Macaulay writes that “Of all the intellectual weapons 
ever, wielded by man the most terrible v^as the mockery of 
Voltaire. Bigots and tyrants who had never been moved 
by the wailing and cursing of millions, turned pale at his 
name.” 

Lecky avers that “He did more for human liberty than 
any other of the sons of men.” “He was more than a 
man,” exclaims Victor Hugo, “he was an age.” Lord Mor- 
ley declares that a proper sense of historical proportion 
to be attained in the future will regard him not as an indi¬ 
vidual, but as an historical epoch like the Renaissance or the 
Reformation. 

As one of the supreme geniuses of humanity—poet, phi¬ 
losopher, wit, historian, dramatist, essayist, philanthropist, 
humanitarian, lover of truth and right—Voltaire toiled for 
the freedom, the enlightenment, the uplift of his fellowmen. 
The glorious France that is, in the place of the France that 
was, is the grandest of tributes to his work and worth. The 
world has assimilated his spirit. Voltaire lives in the intel¬ 
lectual and moral idealism of our time. 

28 


THE WANDERER 


REV. ALTER M. BRICE. 

I do not approve of discussion of Voltaire, for it only 
advertises him and brings his name before the public, who, 
merely because of the discussion, become interested in him, 
and as a result are apt to read his books. 

I feel the same way about Voltaire as I do about William 
Randolph Hearst—the less said about these two the better, 
and as for reading either the Hearst papers or the books 
of Voltaire, why, I would just as soon pick someone’s 
pocket. 

Voltaire was hypocrisy personified. He may have been 
clever in the smart sense, but that ended it—he was not 
great and he was not true. Besides his blasphemy of the 
sacred Bible, his private life was enough to disgust any one 
who believes in morality, and his life with the “respectable 
Emily” is against all Christian teachings. 

If they had kept him in the Bastille for all of his natural 
life the world would have been better off to-day. Vol¬ 
taire’s unbelief was a sin of greatest enormity and was the 
work of a depraved and guilty heart. The best authentic 
stories say that Voltaire died in a state of terror and despair, 
but whether he had true repentance for his sins is not 
known. However, Christ is always ready to forgive the 
greatest sinner, and although sin and bodily death remain 
to afflict them, their sting is taken away, if even at the last 
minute they accept Christ. 

JAMES T. DOYLE. 

What I think of Voltaire has been so well expressed by 
Elbert Hubbard that, with your permission, I will quote 
from the East Aurora advocate of intellectual freedom: 

“When Voltaire shook his long, bony finger, every hypo¬ 
crite in Christendom trembled. The right of free speech 
dates to Voltaire. The words of Voltaire were the explo¬ 
sives that razed the Bastille. 

29 


THE WANDERER 


“Before the days of Voltaire, there was a prison attached 
to every church, and when the prisons got too full, a few 
men were taken out and hanged, or burned in the public 
square, for the edification of people who thought that this was 
all to the glory of God. 

“God was so weak, according to the people, that He could 
not protect His own interests. Therefore, these theological 
things, who professed a religion of tenderness and com¬ 
passion and love, turned the world into a hell for the benefit 
of everybody who did not agree with them. 

“Voltaire taught that no man had evolved to paint where 
he could comprehend absolute truth. Voltaire said we were 
all in process; that truth to every man was a point of view; 
but that, through mental growth and spiritual evolution and 
the expression of what he believed to be true, man would 
eventually become capable of interpreting truth. 

“Voltaire lived to be 84 years of age, sane, sensible, suc¬ 
cessful, witty, ironical.” 

DAVID ECCLES. 

The sainted Voltaire! If a man is to be classified by his 
influence for good, Voltaire was very great. Among all the 
brilliant French writers of his time he had no superior for 
profound knowledge, cutting satire, or sparkling wit. He 
was the Ingersoll of France, and to his writings more than 
to any other single man may we attribute the high rational¬ 
ism of that great Nation. 

Of course he had mental limitations; for science was then 
in its infancy; though, as Huxley says, “strangled theo¬ 
logians lay thick around it like snakes around the cradle of 
Hercules.” His encyclopedia spread information among 
the masses concerning religion that more conservative writ¬ 
ers did not dare to handle. 

Like our own Oliver Wendell Holmes, he steadily incor¬ 
porated his rational views through his various literary pro¬ 
ductions, and like him won church enmity. Like him, also, 

30 


THE WANDERER 


he could say: “I know the undercurrent of secret sympathy 
that gives vitality to these poor words of mine.” He was 
read with avidity. The appraisement of his merit will 
hinge on our own mental development. The English poet, 
Cowper, put him lower than the most illiterate housewife, 
for he says: 

'"She knows enough to know her Bible true, 

Something the distinguished Frenchman never knew.” 

We know enough to know that Voltaire was right and 
Cowper was wrong. Plenary inspiration and infallibility 
for that book is now discarded by even the clergy. Critical 
internal analysis, the revelations of science and explorations 
in Assyria, Judea and Egypt have taught us that it, like all 
human productions, is a mixture of truth and error. “The 
demons of our sires become the saints whom we adore.” 
and Voltaire will yet be enshrined. 

MAILLIO NOELO. 

This, in a way, is difficult to ask to accomplish within a 
sense of reasonableness, because Voltaire is the very em¬ 
bodiment of the century in which he lived. A century 
wherein the crown vied with the cross in brutalities, vices 
of various kinds, and religious bigotry. Where one sect 
killed the members of some other sect, where reason was 
substituted by the play of emotion and mob rule. The in¬ 
tellect was subordinated to the whims of drunken kings and 
to the sensualities of priests. To raise a voice of protest 
against existing conditions was equivalent to losing one’s 
life and that is why Voltaire’s daring and courage is infi¬ 
nitely greater than the calumnies directed against him by 
his critics. Doubtless Voltaire imbibed the vices of which he 
is accused, but is that all he contributed in freeing mankind 
from religious hypocrisy which has surrounded the world at 
large, killing the soul, impeding progress and stifling growth ? 

With a subtle knowledge of all the shades of the French 
3i 


THE WANDERER 

language and a gift of craftsmanship equaled by none, he 
has thrown time and time again into consternation all the 
evil forces of the crown and church by his biting epigrams. 
Repeatedly exiled and returned, but never dismayed by all 
the forces of oppression. He, the humanitarian, raised his 
voice time and time again on behalf of the Sirven, Jean 
Calas and others, who suffered untold horrors at the hands 

of saintly priests. . 

Voltaire, the immortal spirit, of whom a soul akin to his 

own, Goethe, said: 

“If you wish depth, genius, imagination, taste, reason, 
sensibility, philosophy, elevation, originality, nature, intel¬ 
lect, fancy, rectitude, facility, flexibility, precision, art, 
abundance, variety, fertility, warmth, magic, charm, grace, 
force, an eagle sweep of vision, vast understanding, instruc¬ 
tion rich, tone excellent, urbanity, suavity, delicacy, correct¬ 
ness, purity, clearness, eloquence, harmony, brilliancy, rapid¬ 
ity, gaiety, pathos, sublimity and universality, perfection in¬ 
deed, behold Voltaire!” 

Are we then to attempt to classify the one individual who 
belongs to neither century nor age, but to eternity? An 
impossible task. 

DO YOU BELIEVE THAT LEON 
TROTZKY IS SINCERE? 

We heap scorn upon the head of Leon Trotzky. Yet 
it is hard to rate a man from a distance , and one man 
who knows Trotzky well has said of him, i( Leon Trot¬ 
zky is the greatest man since Christ 

ALBERT RHYS WILLIAMS. 

D O you believe that Leon Trotzky is sincere? 

I might paraphrase it in this way: Does Trotzky 
in his heart of hearts believe in Bolshevism? Does Trotzky 
32 


THE WANDERER 


really think that it will right the wrongs of the world and 
set it on the way to justice and brotherhood? 

A good test of a man’s sincerity is the price he is willing 
to pay for the principles he professes. To discover that 
one turns to the life, words and actions of the man in ques¬ 
tion. 

Trotzky is a linguist, an economist, a terse and able 
writer, a man of tremendous energy and initiative. Any of 
the usual roads that lead to wealth and luxury he might have 
traveled. But when we look over his past we find that it is 
one long story of poverty, persecution and imprisonment. 

His principles made him refuse the money of wealthy 
relatives and of journals with whose editorial policies he 
could not agree. The result is that Olgin, the anti-Bol¬ 
shevik writer, found him and his family living in Vienna 
in two rooms on an income less than that of the average 
workingman. 

In the presence of the crimes and imperialisms he was 
compelled to cry out, so he was hounded by police spies 
from land to land. 

His conscience would never allow him to play safe. Con¬ 
sequently, again and again he was thrown into prison, escap¬ 
ing the last time by driving reindeer 500 miles across the 
snows of Siberia. 

Arthur Bullard, the head of the American Bureau of In¬ 
formation in Russia, told me that the English, French and 
American secret service had combined to make a complete 
“dossier” of Lenin and Trotzky. The record showed the 
activities of these two men for almost every day of their 
lives. The whole earth was combed to get it. “I only 
wish,” said Bullard, “that I might have as consistent a rec¬ 
ord as these two gentlemen.” 

In many ways I had direct contacts with Trotzky. I felt 
his wrath descend on me once, when he took me for an 
agent of American capitalists trying to slip him 100,000 
rubles. I worked under him, helping to send millions of 

33 


THE WANDERER 


pieces of propaganda into Germany to stir up the revolu¬ 
tion there. I heard him speak on scores of occasions. 
Raymond Robins says Trotzky is the most able and eloquent 
platform orator he has heard in 20 years. 

No one could hear him in speech or see him in action 
without saying: “Here, in a world full of sham and com¬ 
promise, is a man terribly honest, passionately sincere.” 

JULIAN KENNEDY. 

I think the chances are that he is at least in a fair meas¬ 
ure sincere. As some of his theories are utterly vicious, the 
question of his sincerity is not important, except for the fact 
that a sincere man whose beliefs are wrong is far more dan¬ 
gerous to society than one whose beliefs are not sincere. 

DR. LYMAN E. DAVIS, Editor, Methodist Recorder. 

Every great crisis develops its own leaders, whether they 
are true or false; and while the historian may seek to dis¬ 
close the underlying principles of every great movement in 
the progress of civilization, to the exclusion of the personal 
equation, yet the man of the hour often looms larger than 
the events that crowd around him, until biography becomes 
in many instances the determining factor of history. Leon 
Trotzky, the Russian leader most conspicuous in the passing 
tragedy of that great, unhappy country, is one of the unique 
products of the great war. 

What think ye of Trotzky? Is he sincere? Is he a true 
patriot or only a self-seeking adventurer? Is he to be 
finally recorded in the perpetual book of fame or merely in 
the day-book of notoriety? Whatever the answer we give 
to this interesting question, we must first of all think of him 
as the very personification of misfortune to the Russian peo¬ 
ple. And our judgment, as thus far enlightened by the 
career of the man, leads to the conviction that Trotzky is 
merely a self-seeking demagogue, and that there is so much 

34 


THE WANDERER 


of the tyrant in his blood, so little of the statesman in his 
intellect and so little of the patriot in his heart, that he will 
take his place in the story of Russia as a greater embodi¬ 
ment of evil than Ivan the Terrible. 

JACOB MARGOLIS. 

A Russian sent to Siberia and who subsequently escaped, 
driven from England, France and Germany and every other 
country in Europe in turn, and finally finding refuge in the 
United States of America—this same Russian was offered 
a position with a Jewish newspaper in the city of New 
York at a salary of $60 a week, but preferred to work for 
a Russian newspaper, which offered him one-third as much, 
because it expressed his views and rejected compromises. 
This same man, as soon as the revolution in Russia broke 
out in 1917, rushed back to his homeland to participate in 
the trials and difficulties of the revolution. He found that 
the Russian revolution, under Kerensky, was not his ideal 
and openly opposed the new order and again found himself 
silenced in a Russian prison. The outstanding character¬ 
istics of the man are inflexible idealism, uncompromising 
devotion to his beliefs, unparalleled heroism in face of all 
danger. This, in short, is the history of Leon Trotzky. 
How can his sincerity be questioned? All of the ordinary 
temptations—money, position, honors, popularity, have never 
moved him from the single purpose of world revolution. He 
may be accused of fanaticism, hardness, but hardly of in¬ 
sincerity. This is the opinion of one not in entire sympathy 
with the Trotzky-Lenin regime in Russia to-day. 

REV. W. I. WISHART, Eighth United Presbyterian 
Church, Pittsburg. 

The Russian situation has been the most complicated and 
puzzling in the international program. And it is largely be¬ 
cause Russia’s people in general and her leaders in particu- 

35 


THE WANDERER 


lar are not well understood by our occidental students and 
statesmen. Perhaps Leon Trotzky is the most puzzling of 
them all. The man seems to be largely made up of incon¬ 
sistencies and contradictions, at least as we view him from 
this distance. It is to be remembered, however, that we are 
viewing him from a distance, and that our means of infor¬ 
mation are not very satisfactory. 

Trotzky seems to be a dreamer, who has been fed up on 
the theories of Marx and other theorists who have imagined 
that ideal social conditions can be brought about solely 
through economic reorganization. Then Trotzky seems to 
have a testy and irascible temper, and is hardly supplied 
with the patience and breadth of vision needed to give his 
theories a fair test. I think Trotzky is sincere enough. 
But, being the type of man he is, it is unfortunate for him 
that such large responsibility for working out the socialistic 
dream has been thrown upon him. And it is certainly un¬ 
fortunate for that type of Socialism that Trotzky is its 
major prophet. 

DR. W. J. VAN ESSEN. 

If it is true, and I believe it is, that “Trotzky refused to 
write for certain New York publications because they pub¬ 
lished deceptive advertising/’ if it is true, that “Trotzky 
was branded the black sheep by his wealthy family” because 
of his declining to prostitute himself in the commercial 
world, and devoted his life to the study of social problems 
and his uncompromising determination to build a new, bet¬ 
ter social system on the ruins of capitalism ; 

And further, his work entitled, “Socialism and World 
Peace,” his analysis of European affairs, his severe criti¬ 
cism of the various Socialist parties because of their na¬ 
tionalistic attitudes, instead of remaining internationalists, 
regardless of consequences ; 

And his wonderful success in building a Red army that 
is now defending the interest of the Russian proletariat 

36 


THE WANDERER 


against the sinister campaigns now being waged at several 
places in Russia and Siberia by former officers of the Czar 
and their professional soldiers, as well as against armies 
that have the support of British and French financial inter¬ 
ests; 

And finally his reported refusal to enter into any agree¬ 
ment that would permit enemies of the working class to 
again rule Russia or remain on Russian territory, even 
though by so doing he could have secured food for the half- 
starved population, and wealth for himself. 

I firmly believe that Trotzky above all others is going to 
either succeed in establishing a Government that is in har¬ 
mony with the interests of the workers, and therefore the 
principles of Socialism, or go down in temporary defeat; 
but, nevertheless, he, with Lenin, will be recorded in his¬ 
tory as a statesman of the new social order and credited 
with the sincerity of the realistic enthusiast. 

DR. WILLIAM OLEON. 

The question precludes all but one answer and that is in 
the affirmative without any reservation. If we are to judge 
man’s actional sincerity by his past and present behavior, 
then doubtless Leon Trotzky is the arch exponent of the 
dictum “act as you preach.” 

Of course, one may question the efficacy of his doctrine; 
one may go a step further and accuse him of change in 
tactics, but at no time was the man insincere or acted for 
ulterior motives of personal gain. 

In the present crisis, when one’s sincerity of professing 
certain beliefs or principles is undergoing such crucial tests, 
it was not men like Trotzky or Lenin, who have been found 
to lack stability in their ideals, but quite the contrary is true, 
thus the word “sincerity” becomes a matter of expediency, 
which assumes various forms according to the demands of 
times. 


37 


THE WANDERER 


In conclusion may one say that it has always been thus, 
that every new idea, every new thought had to batter its 
way through a mass of falsehood, hypocrisy, but it happens 
so that ideas seem to possess flagellae and will penetrate, 
there where they are least wanted or desired. It is because 
that individuals, like Trotzky, who never stops to question 
himself, whether this or that act of his is sincere, that prog¬ 
ress is made possible. Action speaks louder than words, 
and to the man of action belongs the future. 


IS LIBERTY IN AMERICA DEAD? 

“The world that we must seek is a world in which 
creative spirit is alive , in which life is an adventure full 
of joy and hope , based rather upon the impulse to con¬ 
struct than upon the desire to retain what we possess or 
to seize what is possessed by others. It must be a world 
in which affection has free play , in which love is purged 
of the instinct of domination , in which cruelty and envy 
have been dispelled by happiness and the unfettered de¬ 
velopment of all the instincts that build up life and fill 
it with mental delights. Such a world is possible; it 
waits only for man to create it. 

“Meanwhile, the world in which we exist has other 
aims. But it will pass away , burned up in the fire of 
its own hot passions; and from its ashes will spring a 
new and younger world, full of fresh hope , with the light 
of morning in its eyes.” 

—Bertrand Russell. 

GEORGE W. COLEMAN, President, Open Forum 
National Council, Boston. 

N O, indeed; liberty is not dead in America, although a 
superficial observer might be led to think so. 

When public authorities find ways and means to set 
aside constitutional rights and carry out such restrictions 

38 


THE WANDERER 


in a spirit of partisanship, it engenders the very violence 
which they seek to guard against. The trouble is that 
the world war has left the public in a bad state of “nerves,” 
which manifests itself in many unwarranted and inexplic¬ 
able attitudes on the part of public authorities. 

RALPH H. LASDAY. 

With the overthrow of autocracy, certain of our half- 
baked fellow men have assumed openly and very perni¬ 
ciously, too, that the restraint of all personal liberties is bad. 
What is worse, windmill-like, they are strumping their 
ideas upon their hearers with violence and other liberty 
and harmony-destroying measures. As a result, Uncle 
Sam is forced to do a little spanking. 

Unfortunately, these Bolshevists and anarchists have the 
perverted idea that the restraint of certain liberties so nec¬ 
essary to a smooth-running social order means that liberty 
in America is altogether dead. Let them compare the crim¬ 
inal code and statutes of 1919 with those of 1819; let 
them read the history of religious tolerance of America 
and compare it with that of other countries; let them com¬ 
pare the rights of free speech, free travel, business liberties 
of America with those of other countries. They will find 
that as the social mind becomes more intelligent and en¬ 
lightened, more self-conscious of its own possibilities to 
grow evolutionarily, personal restraint, so necessary now, 
will gradually decrease, almost automatically. 

DANIEL LLOYD. 

Liberty in America is not dead. It is more alive than 
at any time since 1776, and with loftier ideals in view. 
I. W. W.ism, Bolshevism, Social-Communism, and all the 
other so-called radicalisms whose vagaries and alleged mis¬ 
deeds a few “inspired” newspapers take delight in depicting 

39 


THE WANDERER 


in livid colors, are but a froth or scum in the seething 
kettle of liberty—the real brew underneath, clear, strong, 
and salutary, is going to purge this Nation of its selfish¬ 
ness, its class-consciousness, its arrogant snobbery, its 
laissez-faire indifference, and give to all things a new life, 
and a deeper meaning. 

Strenuous efforts, it is true, are being made to stifle 
honest expression of opinion—freedom of speech, to say 
nothing of freedom of action, is a by-word and a hissing; 
but liberty in the United States will never die so long as 
brave men and women dare to speak the truth, regardless of 
prisons, or disbarments, or banishments. 

No reforms were ever instituted without turbulence and 
this country of ours is no exception to the rule; but that 
out of all this ruck and turmoil great good will come is, 
I feel sure, as certain as the procession of the equinoxes. 

To change my metaphor, liberty, in the words of George 
Washington, when it begins to take root, is a plant of 
rapid growth certainly, the increase of so-called radical 
views among the thoughtful, educated, God-fearing and 
man-loving classes of the community would seem to indicate 
a healthy root-stock. 

JOHN FITZMAURICE. 

No, not dead. She has only been knocked on the head 
and stunned, stupefied, and lulled to sleep, and the present 
Administration is trying its utmost to keep her in a coma¬ 
tose state. They fear the reaction that will take place upon 
her re-awakening. 

The war has cost $26,000,000,000, the Government has 
created a spirit of reckless extravagance and those who 
benefit thereby are loath to give up the soft snap. Never 
in the history of the world was lying practiced on such a 
colossal scale and with such a lavish expenditure of money 
and labor as during the late war. That the Germans were 

40 


THE WANDERER 


completely outdone in this line by the British was due to 
no lack of effort or intention on their part, but to the su¬ 
perior skill and longer professional experience of the 
British. 

In their own line of production, the British propaganda 
manufacturers have long been unapproachable. Now that 
they have been successful in their propaganda of lunacy, 
they wish to hold that gain of power and now endeavor 
to persuade the American Government and people that all 
criticism of the Government and fundamental institutions 
of American life are wrong and should be suppressed as a 
menace. 

And those in the saddle, drunk with power and their own 
importune, listen to the British lute and have suppressed 
in all possible ways, liberty, freedom of speech and free 
assemblage. The fact that criticism is in the air shows 
there must be something fundamentally wrong. The mul¬ 
titude do not complain without cause. 

But the day of the return of Liberty to her stand in the 
sun will come and the way of the transgressor will be hard. 

HARRY H. POSEN. 

No, not exactly dead, but in throes of death. Permit me 
to point out certain symptoms indicative of Miss Liberty’s 
malady. One may readily understand that the average 
individual is not much affected by the espionage laws passed 
during the war, and still maintained as a precautionary 
measure, though the war came to an end long ago. The 
average individual is still capable of criticising the bungling 
Democratic Administration without danger of landing in 
jail, but liberties, which some consider indispensable for a 
better understanding and appreciation of the world’s affairs 
have surely been curtailed in a manner which makes one 
doubt whether this is still the country of the free and the 
brave. 


41 


THE WANDERER 

But if you happen to believe the present Government had 
no business to meddle in the affairs of Russia, jail for you. 
If you happen to think and dare to express the thought 
that the present war was commercial in its origin and pur¬ 
poses, despite the fact that Wilson said so himself, jail 
for you. If you happen to insist that the present “unrest” 
is due to faulty conditions which encourage some to make 
millions and forces others to starve, that this must be 
changed for the benefit of the country, and if you advocate 
those “dangerous ideas,” jail for you. 

If, in addition, you happen to say or inquire what hap¬ 
pened to the 14 points, jail for you. If you are bold enough 
to say you do not think kissing the flag is a sign of patriot¬ 
ism, jail for you, and if hoodlums happen to hear about it, 
watch for your skull. 

Liberty ? Thirty-six Americans have been killed by mobs 
in the United States since July 31. Nine Americans have 
been killed in Mexico in the same time, and yet we want 
to teach them how to run their country. 

The only liberty left in America is the statue in New 
York Harbor, and she is a pretty old maid, shamelessly 
beckoning and falsely promising liberty and freedom in¬ 
side the gates. 

ALEXANDER BERKMAN, Deportation Department, 
Ellis Island, N. Y., December 11, 1919. 

You ask, “Is liberty dead in America?” 

Frankly, it’s dead as a doornail. 

American liberty was always political. It was founded 
on the Declaration of Independence and on the Constitu¬ 
tion. Under these—as long as these documents played 
an actual part in the life of the Nation, outside 4th of 
July orations—the people of America enjoyed a certain de¬ 
gree of political liberty. It expressed itself in the compara- 

42 


THE WANDERER 

tive freedom of thought, speech and press, of assembly and 
discussion. 

But life is not only political. It is fundamentally and 
pre-eminently economical. Economically the people of the 
United States have never been free. They always have 
been and are now the subjects of the great financial and 
industrial kings. 

Still, the individual man and woman in America had 
better economic opportunities than in the old world, owing 
to the comparative youth and great natural resources of 
the country. Materially he was “better off” than in some 
of the European lands. His better economic and more 
democratic social life reflected themselves in his freer polit¬ 
ical institutions. 

But capitalism was developing apace. America became 
the Eldorado of trusts and monopolies, with correspond¬ 
ing decrease of economic opportunity for the masses. Very 
quickly the United States was turned into a plutocracy 
economically and politically into a bureaucracy controlled 
by the great financial interests. 

The “free” American workers thus became the prole¬ 
tariat, the actual wage slaves of a clear-cut capitalistic 
regime. Labor discontent began to manifest itself in pro¬ 
gressively more organized and determined form. Capital¬ 
istic opposition and governmental suppression were the in¬ 
evitable result. 

In 1886 the first great American labor uprising—the 8 
hour movement—was drowned in the blood of the work¬ 
ers, and labor’s most intelligent and courageous leaders— 
known as the Chicago Anarchists—paid with their lives, 
in November, 1887, for their devotion to the cause of the 
American proletariat. 

Plutocracy triumphed, but the struggle of Capital and 
Labor went on. After the Chicago of 1886, came Home¬ 
stead, Coeur d’Alene, Cripple Creek, Indlow, Colorado and 

43 


THE WANDERER 

countless other bitter fights between the implacable forces 
of exploiter and producer. 

America had definitely become the land of the rich, the 
home of industrial slavery, with all that it involves in op¬ 
pression, political corruption and suppression of liberties. 

Then came the World War, and American participation 
in it. Under cover of wartime necessity, the last vestiges 
of American liberty were destroyed. The draft imposed 
compulsory servitude, the Espionage and similar laws sup¬ 
pressed every free expression. The one time American 
democracy now became transformed into a hot-bed of trium¬ 
phant-Prussianism, the very center of imperialist capitalism. 

Now liberty is as dead in the United States as the 
mummies of Egypt. The much-vaunted Constitution and 
really great Declaration of Independence have been thrown 
on the junk pile, as mere scraps of paper. Liberty is 
dead and buried, with Capital as the pall bearer, and the 
Government the undertaker. Deportation, banishment, si¬ 
lencing by club and jail is the last word of our “constitu¬ 
tional guarantees.” The Muzzle is the symbol of the New 
Americanism. 

But the Ghost of Liberty still walks in the land. Its 
heroic figure stands before me at Ellis Island. It will con¬ 
tinue to remind the country of what America was meant 
to be—a torch enlightening the world. Its mute appeal will 
soon wake the people—the conscious American workers— 
and there shall be a great resurrection. 

Liberty dead, buried, shall yet speak louder than the 
voices you stifle to-day. 


44 


THE WANDERER 


SHOULD RAILROADS BE OPER¬ 
ATED ON TRIPARTITE BASIS? 

“Let me have a three-legged table ” 

—Horace. 

GLENN E. PLUMB, Counsel for Railway Employes of 
America. 

O RGANIZED labor believes in the tripartite system of 
control because of its recognition of the fundamental 
interests involved in every industry based upon a monopoly 
from public grants. Until every interest is equally repre¬ 
sented there can be no harmony between the three groups in 
whose behalf industry is operated. At present in all public 
utilities there is no adequate control over financial manipula¬ 
tions since the public can only dominate by regulatory legis¬ 
lation. Labor is able to obtain its increases in wages only 
through collective, that is hostile, action. Consequently, 
in all public utilities the dominating motive of service is 
subordinate to a perpetual conflict between three parties. 

Organized labor has proposed for the basis of railroad 
reconstruction that no group shall hereafter dominate the 
railroads. Management, the public, and labor, share equally 
in the responsibilities of the industry. This is the first 
proposal that organized labor has made which applies to an 
industry the fundamental principles of freedom that gave 
birth of this Nation and that have kept it united. 

EDWARD HUNGERFORD. 

While I do not advocate Government ownership at the 
present time, I believe the Plumb plan has much of virility 
and strength, and that the eventual solution of the American 
railroad situation must come in non-competitive regional 
systems in which labor has a fair share in the profits, and 

45 


THE WANDERER 

alongside of the patron and the stockholder, an active voice 
in the management. 

STEPHEN C. MASON, President, National Association 
of Manufacturers. 

That the railroads should be privately owned and op¬ 
erated, the return to the owners to be made not later than 
the period fixed by the present statute, or sooner if remedial 
legislation essential to their successful operation is enacted. 

That as soon as possible and throughout the period of 
Government administration, Congress should provide amply 
for the execution of a vigorous program for the adequate 
upkeep and betterment of the railway properties, both be¬ 
cause this is an obligation which the Government has as¬ 
sumed toward the owners and the public and because ex¬ 
perience demonstrates that normal railway buying exerts 
a powerful influence upon general business and employment. 

That Congress should clearly declare that the promotion 
and expansion of transportation facilities is an essential 
public policy of the United States. That such policy should 
embrace systemic railway development, that of inland water¬ 
ways and hard-surfaced roads, and the articulation of these 
forms of essential communication. The plan and execution 
of such a policy should be the duty of a highly qualified 
transportation board created for that purpose, relieving the 
Inter-State Commerce Commission of the administrative 
duties essential to so great a policy, and recommending to 
the commission the elements of an adequate rate structure 
to sustain it. 

That the rule of rate-making should be clearly defined by 
statute, including as elements of an adequate rate an amount 
sufficient to insure the maintenance of efficient service, make 
a fair return upon the existing investment and assure the 
obtainment and protection of essential credit. 

That the railroads privately owned and operated, but sub¬ 
ject to Federal regulation and incorporation, should be au- 
46 



THE WANDERER 


thorized to consolidate and co-operate among themselves 
for the co-ordination of lines, facilities, organizations and 
terminals and the elimination of waste, to the same extent 
and in the same manner as such co-operation and consolida¬ 
tion has been permitted or required during Government 
operation and administration. 

GEN. JACOB S. COXEY, SR. 

The means of transportation, the railroads and steamship 
lines, are solely a Government function; therefore,, they 
should be owned and operated at cost to all the people. The 
railroads were originally constructed upon franchises 
granted by the State, and until the Government took them 
over, it was a State proposition. But since the Government 
has made it a Federal proposition and are now in posses¬ 
sion of the roads, the Government should perform aiiother 
function, and issue legal tender money to pay for them. 

The franchises have been gifts that rightfully belong to 
all the people with no physical value in them; these should 
be confiscated and restored to the rightful owner, the 
people. 

The physical value in actual dollars put into these prop¬ 
erties, or appraised at what they could be reproduced for, 
represented by interest-bearing bonds and dividend-bearing 
stocks, should be paid to the holders in full legal tender 
money, issued by the Government for that express pur¬ 
pose. 

If this were done, it would make a saving of $100,000,000 
per month, or $1,200,000,000 per year, upon the supposed 
valuation of $20,000,000,000 in interest-bearing bonds and 
dividend-paying stocks. 

Under this plan, the Government could raise the com¬ 
pensation for labor to a just rate, retire and cancel 4 per 
cent annually of the amount of Treasury notes or money 
issued, and paid out for the railroads or means of trans¬ 
portation, and authorize the Inter-State Commerce Com- 
‘ 47 


THE WANDERER 


mission to adjust the freight and passenger rates to care 
for such labor, partial payments, and expenses of operation 
of the roads, to cover the cost and thereby reduce freight 
and passenger rates to the point of cost for service rendered 
and not for profit. 

It will require from one billion to a billion and a half 
a year for railroad betterment and equipment. The money 
should be issued by the Government to pay for such better¬ 
ment and equipment, and the rates should be levied to retire 
the amount issued at the rate of 4 per cent, per annum. 
The Government would own the roads and have them paid 
for at the end of twenty-five years, without interest, divi¬ 
dend or injury to it, and with a benefit to all of the people. 

RAYMOND SWING. 

The purpose of the Plumb plan is to operate the railroads 
for service rather than for profit. The failure of industry 
to produce in larger measure is due to the inability of those 
who manage it to obtain the maximum effort from their 
employes. It is, in fact, because they are employes, not 
partners, that workers give as a rule only what they can be 
interested in giving. The contribution may be a fair one, 
and the worker obviously is not dishonest in not giving 
more. The point is that he is not interested in giving more. 
How can he be interested if his initiative is not rewarded? 
How can he desire to raise his production if some non¬ 
producer takes all the new profits? The present system is 
servitude; not slavery but restriction, the restriction of the 
spirit of enterprise. 

The American railroads are not operated as ably as they 
can be, although they rank with the first in the world. 
What enterprise there is, what desire to grow beyond the 
present limits of improvement rests with managers who 
have to cope with uninterested employes. And the goal is 
not to serve the public, but to enrich the stockholders. 

48 


THE WANDERER 


Small wonder that railroad men can not be aroused to co¬ 
operate with all energy for such an end. 

The importance of the Plumb plan is that it enunciates a 
principle and is built in conformity with it, the truth that 
workers are men, and that to inspire them they need the 
liberation from drudgery which comes through respon¬ 
sibility. 

JACOB MARGOLIS. 

The Plumb plan has been heralded as a revolutionary 
and startling proposition and has consequently received 
the condemnation of all the journals believing in the status 
quo and in the sacred right of ownership. The particular 
thing which offended was the demand that private capital 
be retired. However, the Plumb plan does not require the 
stoppage of interest payments, the confiscation of capital al¬ 
ready invested, but merely seeks to stop the investment of 
private capital in future railroad investments. Wall Street 
financiers will no longer be able to wreck railroads, float 
bond and stock issues, out of which they will make many 
millions of dollars. Those who have called it Sovietism are 
very far from the mark, for Sovietism means the abolition 
of private property and all the incidents of private property, 
such as profits, interest payments and Government control. 

There is one phase of the Plumb plan which has received 
no attention, but which merits much consideration. That is 
the actual control and running of railroads by the railroad 
workers and technical staffs. These two groups maintain 
that they will be able to give cheaper and better service by 
reason of their ability. That is the only asset they claim 
to possess and they hold that this asset is greater than all 
other factors in railroad management. 

If the railroad workers and the technical staffs actually 
undertake the solution of technical problems of railroading, 
we shall for the first time bring to industry the responsibility 
and resourcefulness of the worker himself. As a conse- 

49 


THE WANDERER 

quence there will be released the ability and creative facul¬ 
ties of the workers and the technical staffs in the solution 
of railroad problems. It will be an actual demonstration 
that the railroaders and technical staffs are sufficient to 
conduct industry without the financiers and interest takers. 
Aroused interest and joy in work heretofore unknown in 
industry would be the portion of the worker. 

In this experiment, as a logical consequence, if success¬ 
ful, may come an entirely new order of things, that is, 
an order based on the creative faculty predominating in 
place of the possessive, although the plan itself apparently 
does not have such a fundamentally revolutionary concept. 
Yet despite the proponents of the plan, such may be the out¬ 
come. For this reason, if for no other, the Plumb plan 
should receive the unqualified approval of all those who 
are in any way opposed to the present order of things. 

W. H. ROBERTSON. 

In the discussion of any subject, especially of one of 
vital importance, the first consideration should be is it just 
and right? If it will not stand this test there is little use 
in proceeding further. The tripartite basis—or Plumb plan, 
as it is better known—appears to be fundamentally sound, 
just, and exceedingly simple and practicable. Its adoption 
would unify and co-ordinate the railway systems of the 
Nation under Federal ownership, giving the millions of 
security holders the safest form of investment on earth— 
United States Government bonds—instead of the shaky 
quality of many of the stocks now held by many of them, 
and would indirectly tend to stabilize all security values. 

The tripartite arrangement of an equal number of repre¬ 
sentatives of the Federal Government, managing officials, 
and employes on the board of directors should insure a 
balance of power that would conserve the rights of all under 
any circumstances, and the full ownership and a measure 
of control on the part of the Government would eliminate 

50 


THE WANDERER 

fictitious stock issues, rebating, favoritism, stock gambling, 
ownership in supply lines and other practices that have 
worked injury in the past to stockholders, employes and, 
most of all, to the general public. 

The attempt to class this plan as Bolshevism, or such like, 
is weak—almost pathetic. The counter plans and objections 
advanced by the corporate interests and their apologists look 
amateurish when placed in contrast with the statesman¬ 
ship of the measure proposed by the railroad brotherhoods. 
It is the entering wedge to democracy and I believe its early 
adoption is inevitable. Certainly there is no question that 
it is desirable. 


WHAT IS THE ORIGIN OF SIN? 

“Forms, qualities, lives, humanity, language, thoughts, 

The ones known, and the ones unknown—the ones on 
the stars, * 

The stars themselves, some shaped, others unshaped, 

Wonders as those countries—the soil, trees, cities, in¬ 
habitants, whatever they be, 

Splendid suns, the moon and rings, the countless combi¬ 
nations and effects, 

Such-like, and as good as such-like, visible here or any¬ 
where, stand provided for in handful of space, 
which 1 extend my arm and half enclose with my 
hand, 

That contains the start of each and all—the virtue, the 
germs of all; 

That is the theory of origins ” 

—Walt Whitman in ‘‘Leaves of Grass.” 

DR. WARREN E. MARKS. 

T HE origin of sin took place in the Garden of Eden, 
when the serpent insisted Eve should eat of the fruit of 
the tree. Before this time there was no sin in the world. 
5i 


THE WANDERER 

Just why God put sin into the world baffles all investigations, 
but our energy is much better directed when we seek through 
Christ a release from its penalty and power, for ourselves 
and for the whole world. 

Since its entrance into the world, sin has infected the en¬ 
tire human race, spreading with a rapidity that has not 
been checked or cannot be checked until every one is 
willing to be cleansed by Christ. The just penalty of “wages 
of sin is death” was threatened against this first sin or the 
original sin, as it is called. 

A single sin, unrepented of, and unforgiven, destroys 
the soul, as a single break in a telephone wire renders the 
wire useless. But the sinner who feels the relentings of 
godly sorrow for his sins and the desire to confess them 
at the Savior’s feet may be sure of realizing the truth of 
Christ’s word, “Him that cometh unto me, I will in no 
wise cast out.” 

C. F. RODGERS. 

Any fool knows what the origin of sin was. The wise 
only strive to make the answer as involved, elusive and 
vague as are the boundaries of sin themselves. New sins 
are being discovered and enjoyed every day. Their origin 
is, was, and ever will be some killjoy’s objection to the 
brand of happiness other people indulge in. 

Residue from some of our most popular and fleeting sins 
having settled in the accuser’s, liver, they vent their jealousy 
against those things which said residue prevents them from 
longer enjoying. When a pleasure becomes so powerful 
and popular as to threaten the Church or dignity of the 
law, the doctor is immediately called and finds the germ 
of sin fermenting in the joy of life and we turn black over 
night. Woe, and once more whoa, unto ye who harken not 
unto the stern decree of the sin-maker! For his mind, like 
his morals, has gone to seed and is apt to sprout into don’ts 
and can’ts at any time or place. 

52 


THE WANDERER 


“Thou shalt not” is an invitation to the average human’s 
curiosity to find out what it is he “shalt not.” Lacking 
sufficient social prestige and power to carry him safely 
through the nots, he becomes a sinner. Having them he 
becomes a wise man. As a poet so aptly put it: 

“King Solomon apd King David led merry, merry lives, 

With their many, many concubines, and their many, many 
wives; 

But when old age crept on them, with its many, many 
qualms, 

King Solomon wrote the Proverbs, King David wrote 
the Psalms.” 

CATHERINE ZUMBRO. 

Before God there was not anything—neither time, nor 
goodness, nor sin. God created the world and all that is 
therein and pronounced them good; nevertheless, God, Him¬ 
self, was the first to mention “evil” and by this token proves 
that He was aware of the possibility of sin. 

Hell was not created, nor made (authorities differ) until 
centuries after Mother Eve made the momentous decision 
that a knowledge of right and wrong was preferable to 
ignorance and obedience, and, therefore, sin could not have 
been transplanted from a place which, at that time, had no 
existence. 

We are forced to choose one of two possible conclusions; 
either sin is inherent in and emanates from perfection or, 
taking the other horn of the dilemma, sin originated when 
an inferior ego committed an act conducive to the happi¬ 
ness of the inferior but ran counter to the will of a more 
powerful ego. 

Jackson’s Dictionary of Religious Knowledge speaks of 
the “entrance” of sin into the world. From this we are led 
to believe that sin is an imported, and not a native, product. 

53 


THE WANDERER 


FRED HAUCH. 

The origin of sin was when tue brain of the first human 
being was developed to such a degree that when it urged 
him to do a certain act, it also told him whether it was 
right or wrong. If his brain told him it was wrong to do 
the act, but he would do it anyway, then he committed 
a sin. If a person is crazy, or his brain is not developed 
to a certain degree, no matter what he did, it is no sin. 

WILHELMINA BODLER. 

Selfishness is the root of all evil. When God created 
man He made him with the power of choice. Man was 
created in the image of God and with a capacity for God, 
but with freedom of will. God could not have created the 
highest kind of moral being without giving him the power 
of choice and thus arose the possibility of sin, but not its 
necessity. 

God foresaw the entrance of sin and so provided the 
cross for His fallen universe. I Peter 1119-20. He only 
permits what He cannot wisely prevent and overrule for 
good. Psa. 76:10. 

Originally all things were created in the Lord Jesus Christ 
and were good. Col. 1:6. When God’s creatures chose 
themselves before God, sin entered, and there was a separa¬ 
tion between God and His creation. 

In James 1:14-15 we find the genesis of sin. When the 
will is yielded lust conceives and sin is born. God has given 
man power over his will and we can choose or refuse. Be¬ 
sides this, we can have God’s will surrounding our will 
and thus we are safe, as long as we abide in Him. 

LEAH BACKUS. 

It all depends upon whose dog gets licked. I can do a 
thing and it is all right and perfectly natural, but someone 
else might do the same thing and it would be all wrong. 

54 


THE WANDERER 


How many women there are whose husbands do no wrong, 
yet they are bigger blackguards than the neighbors’ hus¬ 
bands ever could be! The same holds true of men, many 
of whom idolize wives who are not only useless but often 
vicious. 

Sin, as I understand it, came into being when some per¬ 
son’s pet com was being trod upon. Someone in power 
disliked seeing a certain thing done and forbade it. The 
prohibition no doubt carried with it a set of punishments 
for those who disobeyed the order. Eventually the wrong 
of doing what was forbidden developed into sin. 

The same holds good to-day. Let the law forbid some 
deed and set a price on the infraction of its mandate, and 
almost at once you have a new sin. See prohibition. A 
year ago I could drink what and when it pleased me as 
long as I had the price, but now if I try to buy a glass of 
any cheering beverage I am sinning. But I can go to 
church and drink the forbidden stuff at communion and 
all will be well. And so it goes. A sin is born every time 
you do something the other fellow doesn’t want you to do. 

JAMES MARSHALL. 

In the church, Mr. Wanderer, in the church! In the 
Christian Endeavor Society and the Sabbath school. In 
the Salvation Army and the Epworth League. Sin is 
affectation. Sin is imagination. 

There is no sin, just as there is no banana oil. They 
make it in laboratories. If I were in Zanzibar, I might walk 
naked. Here it is sin. Score one for the clothing makers. 

In Turkey I may have three wives. Here they give you 
two years. It is no crime to make and sell oleo in Germany; 
$10 fine in No. i police station. 

Sin is an invention. It is used to frighten folks. It 
comes out of the same box as hell’s fire. Adam com¬ 
mitted original sin. No one has done anything original 

55 


THE WANDERER 

since. It is the last grip of the preachers on things. When 
sin is laughed at, the heathen in Afghanistan will be al¬ 
lowed to practice what religion they please. Foreign mis¬ 
sionaries will cease to be advance agents for John D. Rocke¬ 
feller. 

Sin and morals are twin sisters, one the blond, the other 
brunette. They never had anything to do with Mother 
Nature, but are the children of Prejudice and Ignorance. 
They are as useful as a silk hat, spoken of with awe be¬ 
cause the king wears them. To make it short, there is no 
such animal. 


IS THE STRIKE AN ANTIQUATED 
WEAPON FOR MODERN LABOR? 

Strike , and the world strikes with you; work , and you 
work alone . 

EDWARD D. NOLAN, Secretary-Treasurer, International 
Workers’ Defense League, San Francisco. 

I N so far as the use of the strike weapon is directed 
solely to increase wages, there is a growing belief in the 
ranks of labor that it is an antiquated weapon, for the rea¬ 
son that it does not materially advance the standard of 
living. 

The use of the strike to reduce the hours of labor still 
holds the united support of all labor groups for the reason 
that a shorter work day results in permanent gain and makes 
a marked improvement in the whole life of the worker. 

There is at present a growing tendency in labor’s ranks 
generally to use the pressure of the strike to bring about 
co-operative industrial control and management; in short, 
industrial democracy. % 


56 


THE WANDERER 


This movement in England, in the miscellaneous manu¬ 
facture branches, is known as the National Guild Movement. 
The movement among the miners and railroad men is 
summed up in the phrase "‘Nationalize the mines.” In 
America we have the Plumb Plan of the railroad men and 
the “National” plan of the miners, and the demand of the 
general public for Federal control and Government owner¬ 
ship of public utilities and food supply agencies. 

The most militant sections of the labor movement are us¬ 
ing the strike to protest against political injustices. The 
Mooney strike, the Longshoremen’s strike in Seattle backed 
up by Central Labor Council in refusing to load cargoes 
of arms and munitions for Russia, were strikes to remedy 
political grievances. Seattle general strike and the Winne- 
peg and Victoria and other Canadian cities general strikes, 
while having their roots in an industrial grievance, never¬ 
theless, expressed the political unrest of the masses in 
revolutionary terms. 

The old idea of the use of the strike as an economic 
expedient is undoubtedly becoming antiquated, but the 
use of the strike weapon to aid in building a new social 
order has already taken a firm hold on the great mass of 
organized workers the world over. In spite of all propa¬ 
ganda against Russian and Bolshevism the facts are that 
the simple and democratic principle bodied in the idea of the 
Soviets has taken deep root among the masses who toil 
for a living. 

OWEN ASCHMAN. 

The strike, as used up to the present in the United 
States, has merely been a method employed by the workers 
for stopping production and gaining either an increase in 
wages or a reduction of hours of labor or improved shop 
conditions, or all three. The kind of strike has either been 
local or craft, general as to a city or general as to an in¬ 
dustry, but in no instance has it really been revolutionary 

57 


The wanderer 

in character. There has been no strike to date of a gen¬ 
eral, universal character, which had for its purpose the stop¬ 
page of all industry, merely as a preliminary to the taking 
over of industry by the workers. 

By reason of the development of industry, concentration 
of wealth and large aggregates of capital, the local or craft 
strike is in most instances a useless and obsolete weapon. 
The stoppage of production, the purpose of the strike, has 
little effect upon highly organized industries. The general 
strike in a key industry, such as coal and railroads, is so 
able to cripple production that the workers have reasonable 
grounds to expect success through its employment. No 
matter how widespread or effective a general strike may 
be in an industry or in a city, if it has for its goal merely 
increase of wages or reduction of hours it must be cfassified 
among the obsolete weapons. Mere increase of wages or the 
reduction of hours does not change social or economic 
relationships, and does not in any way endanger the vested 
interest nor stop the exploitation of the workers. 

However, the universal, general, revolutionary strike, as 
a preliminary to a new social reorganization, is a distinctly 
modern weapon; and the workers, organized and equipped 
to carry on production with the understanding of the de¬ 
tails of production and feeling the necessary responsibility 
to carry on production, may use the general, universal, revo¬ 
lutionary strike to end the present rule of ownership by 
stopping the production and distribution, paralyzing all in¬ 
dustry, showing the superfluous character of the capitalist 
and demonstrating to the worker how essential he is to 
industry, and from that point to undertake the management 
and conduct of essential industries without any interference 
or control by the former owners of the industry. 

When the worker to-day goes on strike without this revo¬ 
lutionary concept, he admits that the control and responsi¬ 
bility for industry does hot rest with him, but rests with 
the employer. The strike is a negative and not a positive 

5 § / 


THE WANDERER 


factor when the revolutionary implication of taking over 
industry is part of the strike program. I will, therefore, 
have to say that the strike as used to-day is an obsolete 
weapon, but becomes the liberator when the new purpose is 
added to it. 


VOLODYA TENTENTNKIKOV. 

Decidedly not. The strike as a weapon of labor has 
brought changes which would have been impossible to ac¬ 
complish by any other method. And as a means to an end 
it has not reached the perfection which it is bound to 
achieve in the future. The class struggle in this country 
is becoming sharper and more definite, and the sooner the 
laboring class realizes that freedom lies through systematic 
strikes the easier it will be to bring about changes which 
will eliminate the present wasteful system based on ex¬ 
ploitation. 

Strikes are primarily conducted to effect changes in work¬ 
ing conditions, as well as increase wages to meet the ever 
growing increase in cost of living. Every change has been 
effected by a strike, not because it is the most desirable, but 
most expedient. 

The history of strikes in this country since 1880 up to 
the present is proof of efficacy. The reason is not far to 
seek. The idea of one big union is gaining a greater num¬ 
ber of adherents and it becomes easier to carry on a strike 
to a successful issue. 

Who does not remember the terrible conditions prevailing 
in the garment industries and the change wrought in them 
by the weapon of a strike? The textile industries’ strike of 
several years ago and the one of last year is sufficiently 
fresh in mind to prove that the strike is the only remedy 
for the evil conditions existing everywhere in industries 
of America. 

Whether one is capable of discerning or not, the signs 

59 


THE WANDERER 


of the time indicate that the mere increase in wages is not 
the sole goal of labor. There is a demand on the ruling 
class to allow it to participate, to take the industries over 
completely and run them on co-operative basis. 

HOW ARE RADICALS MADE? 

The Wanderer put this question to one man, who 
answered: “Even the worm ivill turn ” 

CHARLES A. BEARD, Director, Bureau of Municipal Re¬ 
search, New York. 

S OME radicals are made by Providence, others by 
bigots. 

MAX EASTMAN, Editor, The Liberator. 

A few answers in the order of their importance: 

By the high and permanently increasing cost of living. 

By the dishonorable cruelty of Wilson and his allied capi¬ 
talist Government toward the labor republics of Russia and 
Hungary. 

By the gradual showing up of Gompers and his machine 
of A. F. of L. officials as the competent lackeys of big 
business. 

By the complete intellectual and moral bankruptcy of 
the United States Congress. 

By the crude and obvious publicity campaign of Wall 
Street for a war on Mexico. 

By the study of that science known as the economic in¬ 
terpretation of history. The Socialist theory is a combina¬ 
tion of that hard-headed science with tender-hearted ideal¬ 
ism. 

By the most gigantic example of the truth of that science 

60 


THE WANDERER 


in all history—the “war for democracy” culminating in the 
establishment of an imperialistic world-dynasty. 

MARSHALL HAMILTON. 

“How Are Radicals Made?” is a most pertinent and 
engaging question at this time. Radicals may be conveni¬ 
ently divided into the sincere, those in earnest about their 
beliefs, and the insincere opportunists, who do not believe in 
their own preachments. 

The sincere radical is the individual who, by reason of 
our complex and heterogeneous civilization, has been un¬ 
able to adapt himself. He shows marked erotic tendency, 
is wholly incapable of suppressing his individualism for 
the social good. He reacts most violently against any and 
all social restraint. Dr. Max Nordau, in “Degeneration,” 
describes Nietzsche, Tolstoi, Ibsen and numerous other 
radicals whose sincerity cannot be questioned. All of them 
fall in with the above description and may properly be 
referred to the care of a psychiatrist and psycho-analyst. 

Did they possess normal analytic and synthetic powers 
they would recognize the numerous factors which go to 
make civilization and would realize the folly of changing 
institutions which have endured for centuries and proved 
their validity by their very stability. They want to make 
root changes, to revolutionize, which proves their super¬ 
ficiality and lack of understanding of the organic laws of 
society and life. 

The opportunist radical is usually a loud-mouthed, shal- 
low-pated individual who hopes to be heard because he is 
conspicuous. The politician who cannot succeed in com¬ 
petition with better men, but as a radical has no opposition. 
Impecunious, inefficient professional men without patients 
or clients; the jealous, the weak, the resentful, the botched 
and the bungled. These make up the army of the radicals 
infesting the world to-day. 


61 


THE WANDERER 


RICHARD BENNETT, Actors’ Equity Association. 

We must designate the managers who have blindly forced 
this issue as the radical, a person unwilling'to arbitrate. 
Not knowing nor caring to know, being of full vision but 
refusing to see any point of view, but his own. A being 
created by fear, moral or personal, love of money, position 
or vanity. A person who has always looked through the 
wrong end of a telescope, when what they really need is 
vision glasses which are now being supplied to them by the 
Actors’ Equity. 

I am a liberal. I sorely deplore the strike that has been 
forced into the theater. I tried to avert it. Not a man 
in the A. E. A. wanted it. I don’t think the managers 
wanted it. They didn’t think the actors (whom many man¬ 
agers looked upon as a band of unthinking, undisciplined 
children) had the grit to force an issue that has been pend¬ 
ing for so many years. 

The attitude of the profession in the late German un¬ 
pleasantness should have opened their eyes—but you see 
being radicals, they were radically wrong. I am a liberal 
but not enough to want to hurt the managers or to humiliate 
them as they have unthinkingly humiliated the artist for 
years. Now, we must win if only to prove to our self-con¬ 
stituted superiors how easy it is to find the good in them 
which they have never been able to find in themselves, the 
spirit of understanding and altruism. 

“MOTHER” JONES. 

Radicals are made by the system. Christ was a radical 
and the, hung him because he was. In our country every 
one in the Revolutionary War who went out to fight were 
radicals for they were opposed to the system of George III. 
Jefferson said when he was in the White House that the 
time would never come when there would not be an upris- 

62 


THE WANDERER 

ing about every 20 years until tyranny was suppressed. 
Patrick Henry was a radical of rabid type, and he was 
merely a youth at the outbreak of the war. 

What we need now is youth of his type. Van Buren 
said 10 hours a day was long enough work for the men in 
the navyyards, and they called him a demigod and fit to be 
President—now we are demanding 6 hours a day. We 
are going after the ownerships of the industries, we workers 
have produced the wealth, and we have a, right to take care 
of it. 

We are fighting for our American Nation that she may 
take her place among the nations of the world that are 
marching towards liberty. If one who is for the workers is 
a Bolshevik—I am one. 

GEORGE H. HALLETT, JR., Associate Editor Young 
Democracy. 

How are radicals made? Some are bom and not made. 
That is, they are brought up in radicalism as most people 
are brought up in conservatism. But more and more are 
being made every year. How? I think I am qualified to 
describe the process in at least one case—my own. 

There are three main reasons for my radicalism. The 
first is that I am a Christian. By that I mean I accept un¬ 
reservedly the way of life taught and lived by Christ and 
forgotten by so many of his “followers.” I try to make 
every decision and perform every act in the spirit of love 
for each and all of my fellow human beings, quite regard¬ 
less of conventional standards and the possible sacrifice 
involved. I became a Christian—in this broad sense—be¬ 
fore I became a radical. 

The second reason is that I have been so fortunate as to 
receive good training in thinking for myself. This our 
higher schools, colleges and universities, hot-beds of con¬ 
servatism as they'often are, frequently succeed in giving. 

63 


THE WANDERER 

At least, in theory they all encourage an unbiased, imagina¬ 
tive, and critical search for truth. It is not necessary to 
teach radicalism to teach such habits of thought. But such 
habits of thought, applied to the vital problems of the day, 
are very likely to lead to radicalism. Without them many 
a sincere Christian—or humanitarian, if you prefer the term 
—fails to analyse the situation correctly and remains con¬ 
servative. 

The third reason is injustice. If we lived in a world 
of good will, those who lived in the spirit of good will 
would be conservative. But things are still pretty funda¬ 
mentally wrong. Poverty, war, imperialism, lynchings, sup¬ 
pression of heretics, disease, special privilege, insecurity— 
for the rich and poor alike, the domination of many by the 
few; these are only a few of the maladjustments that hit 
you in the face. Only changes that are fundamental can 
clear up the mess. 

Given a love of humanity, ability to think for yourself, 
and such conditions as exist to-day, and I don’t see how you 
can help becoming a radical. I couldn’t. 

MAUD C. LEIGH. 

The making of most radicals is based upon three things. 
First, envy—envy of those who have more sense and are 
more industrious than themselves. Instead of working, so¬ 
berly and steadily, for the good things of this world, they 
wish by trickery, dishonesty and violence to take away the 
things which the worker, and hence the successful man, 
has acquired by hard work. 

A second reason for the making of radicals is laziness. 
They are not lazy when it comes to howling and yelling, and 
passing around seditious literature, they are only lazy when 
it comes to real work, and they much prefer, instead of 
working, to sit down and decry the man who by hard 
work has finally placed himself in a position of trust and 
profit and respectability. 


64 


THE WANDERER 


The third reason for the making of radicals is the love 
some people have for notoriety. They can’t attain fame 
by being decent and slowly rising on the ladder—that is too 
slow for them; what they want is quick fame, instant recog¬ 
nition as a “liberator of man.” 

These three reasons are in my opinion the main things 
that account for the wild bunch of lazy, shiftless, feather¬ 
brained extravagants that are buzzing around in every coun¬ 
try of the world to-day. 

WILLIAM D. HAYWOOD. 

I was made into a radical because I. W. W. members have 
been murdered, have been imprisoned, have been tarred and 
feathered, have been deported, have been starved, have 
been beaten, have been denied the right of citizenship, have 
been exiled, have had their homes invaded, have had their 
private property and papers seized, have been denied the 
privilege of defense, have been held in exorbitant bail, have 
been subjected to involuntary servitude, have been kid¬ 
napped, have been subjected to cruel and unusual punish¬ 
ment, have been “framed” and unjustly accused, have been 
excessively fined, have died in jail waiting for trial, have 
been driven insane through persecution, have been denied 
the use of the mails, have been denied the right to organize, 
have been denied the right of free speech, have been de¬ 
nied the right of free press, have been denied the right of 
free assembly, have been denied every privilege guaranteed 
by the Bill of Rights, have been denied the inherent rights 
proclaimed by the Declaration of Independence—life, liberty 
and pursuit of happiness—their offices and headquarters 
have been raided, books, pamphlets, stamps, literature, office 
fixtures have been unlawfully seized, and the I. W. W. as an 
organization and its membership have been viciously ma¬ 
ligned, villified and persecuted. 

65 


THE WANDERER 


WHAT IS A CURE FOR 
RADICALISM? 

Publius Syrus’s 301 Maxim ran, “ There are some 


remedies worse than the disease . 

VICTOR L. BERGER. 

HERE is no “cure for radicalism,” and I hope there 



1 never will be. 

The word “radical” comes from the Greek word “radix 
or root. Humanity will always go to the bottom of things 
in order to get things well rooted. Radicalism may not 
always be pleasant for those on top of the tree enjoying its 
golden fruits, but it is necessary to examine things below 
the surface occasionally and take care of the roots in order 
to have the tree flourish. 

Radicalism, on the other hand, being particularly con¬ 
cerned with growth, naturally favors fanaticism, which fur¬ 
nishes the necessary heat for the growth. But after all, 
there is a place for everything in this world—even for 
fanaticism. Without fanaticism no new idea could ever 
have grown—it could not have overcome the great obstacles 
—and it surely would never have been firmly rooted without 
fanaticism. Thus fanaticism is often the aid and necessary 
companion of radicalism. 

I say again, there is no cure for radicalism and I hope 
that none will ever be found, because to undo radicalism 
means to undo all further progress and all further growth— 
we are liable to kill the tree of civilization by cutting off 
its roots—its radices. 

JOHN M. HENRY, Assistant United States Attorney, 
Pittsburg. 

Radical is derived from the Latin word “Radix” mean¬ 
ing a root, and a radical is one who goes to the root of 


66 


THE WANDERER 


things. In English politics the term “radical” was applied 
to politicians who desired to make thorough, or radical, 
changes in the constitution and in the social order generally. 
Radicalism, therefore, means thorough and severe social 
and political changes. 

Radicalism is a method whereby followers of the particu¬ 
lar doctrine undertake to speedily cure certain social and 
political evils. The existence of radicalism assumes certain 
evils that should be cured. 

Radicalism which undertakes to assert itself through con¬ 
stitutional methods is not an evil but is a necessary part of 
the development toward a higher civilization. When radical¬ 
ism undertakes to ignore constitutional methods and to 
accomplish change by the use of force it is frequently spoken 
of as an evil. 

To cure such an evil we must seek to abolish the things 
which cause the radicalism. No rabid radicalism can exist 
where lives a contented, prosperous people. If you will, 
therefore, undertake to cure such radicalism you must wipe 
out unjust privileges, do justice, give speedy redress of 
wrongs, and above all, remember that the only wealth is 
life, and that Nation is richest which nourishes the largest 
number of noble, happy human beings. 

ARTURO GIOVANNITTI. 

The epidemic has already spread too far to be combated 
with purges, emetics, and cataplasms. I am afraid that 
not even a little blood-letting will do any good. It is plainly 
a case for social surgery. I advise that the disease be 
blasted away by amputating the whole of the infected area, 
that is, the thinking apparatus of 70 per cent of mankind. 

Who is going to do it? Well, the poor boobs who now 
pine to see it done fired the two best experts on record when 
they sent the Kaiser to saw wood and Jack Barleycorn to 
sing masses and litanies. Clemenceau is extremely able, but 

67 


THE WANDERER 


unfortunately too decrepit and too gouty. Kolchak is very 
low with an acute case of dysentery. I can only see one 
hope—Wilson, that’s all! 

If, however, he, also, should fail, then there is only one 
last, forlorn, chance left. Repent, and re-learn from Ger¬ 
many. Start a revolution after the Ebert-Scheidemann type 
and make Samuel Gompers Imperial President and John 
Spargo his Lord High Chancellor. 

The drafting of the Constitution should be entrusted 
entirely to “Billy” Sunday and Thomas Dixon, with a pro¬ 
viso that makes it compulsory for every one to memorize 
all the editorials of the New York Times and all the sermons 
of Dr. Frank Crane. Good luck! 

P. S.—Hurry up! The Bacillus Bolshevicus and the 
Leninococcus Rubrius have already been detected in 
Chicago. 

R. HAMPTON MORGAN. 

The pitiful lack of understanding shown by the forces 
of law and order is responsible for the activities of the 
radicals in this country. The assumption that radicals 
may be overcome by arguments, that the constitutional guar¬ 
antees of free speech apply as well to those seeking to over¬ 
throw the Government and convert this Nation, the century- 
old bulwark of freedom, into a Bolshevik despotism, as 
they do to those defending all the principles of liberty and 
democracy, is the fundamental failure in administration. 

The corner stone of the radical movement, the rock on 
which it founds all appeals to the laborer, is equality of 
all classes. If we of the better classes grant this one false 
promise, then we grant every argument of the international 
Socialist, the I. W. W., and the anarchist. 

The distinction between those whose mere physical 
strength is their only asset and those whose ancestry, educa¬ 
tion, and intrinsic culture place them on a level which all 

68 


THE WANDERER 


the protestations of national democracy deny, is too evident 
in every affair of life to be successfully controverted. 

The brotherhood of man, applied socially, carries in its 
train, the various anarchic ideals of industrial democracy, 
uselessness of government and sanctity of physical labor. If 
men are thus equal, the Socialist is the true philosopher; 
if not, then the sciences of political economy and every re¬ 
spected axiom of sociology are worthless. 

How then, shall we, to preserve the finer things, deal 
with these radicals? We cannot meet them on the plane of 
intellect, for they refuse the true premise. If not by thought, 
then they must be dealt with by means of the only other 
power we possess. 

This is the power which they themselves seek to use, 
and which has been denied them by the finer adjustments of 
our civilization of defense. It is the power which has been 
uniformly successful, the power granted by our laws, and 
enjoined by our institutions. It is the power of force. 

If they seek to overcome us by force, let us use force in 
return and since we possess the greater force, we shall re¬ 
main triumphant. The efficiency of our State police, that 
splendid wall of freedom, our magnificent army, if need be, 
of the irrefutable argument of the phalanx of civilization 
which overcame autocracy—all these must be employed to 
protect our institutions. 

EDWARD GARSTIN SMITH. 

What is radicalism? The subject has viewpoints and 
angles. Radicalism is in opposition to conservatism. Is 
radicalism good? That depends upon the conservatism it 
opposes. Therefore, it is necessarily a negative force. 

Truth is affirmative; falsehood, negative. Hence, when 
conservatism to which radicalism is opposed is good, radical¬ 
ism is bad, and vice versa. Radicalism is good or bad 
according to what it opposes. Of course, all this applies 

69 


THE WANDERER 

to the moral aspect of human conduct, especially govern- 
ment. 

What constitutes good conservatism? Conduct based on 
fundamental truths—axiomatic facts, with a view of their 
moral bearings. For instance: i. Two times two are four. 
2. As you sow, so shall you reap. 3 * No man shall have 
ownership in his fellowman. Proposition three strikes at 
the root of human society. 

I would take out the first commandment of the Mosaic 
code and throw it into the waste basket of oblivion. It is 
nebulous nonsense, poison vapor, cloudy verbiage meant to 
befog the human mind. Because most Christians in their 
fierce ignorance do not even know the first of the Ten Com- 
mandments, “Thou shalt have no other God before me. 

In its place I would substitute proposition three, viz: No 
man shall have ownership in his fellowmen.” It would 
improve the moral code. But I would be, as I am, outlawed 
by Christians as a radical seeking to overthrow privileged 
government. 

Here we are at the ancient crossroads of society, marked 
“radical” and “conservative.” The old conservative road 
has over its entrance gate the first commandment. The 
radical road has my substitute. The conservative road is 
the old caravan route, well worn and still in constant use, 
where are to be seen the footprints of human sheep, driven 
by cunning masters. 

HAROLD F. HUGHES. 

The radicalism that is sweeping the world is merely re¬ 
action from the war, and it is only a surface eruption that 
is not vital. I believe that down in the heart of the people 
of every Nation there is the wish for the good of that Na¬ 
tion, and human good does not come through radicalism, 
but through a just Government, well-established, guided by 
a firm, just hand, such as our three greatest Presidents have 
had, who have steered our ship of state into a safe harbor 

70 


THE WANDERER 


after our three great wars—for Independence in 1776, for 
Abolition in 1861, and the war for Democracy in 1914. 

A. H. MILES. 

Let them talk. 


SHOULD ART BE MORAL? 

“Morality is simply the attitude we adopt towards 
people whom we personally dislike ” 

—Oscar Wilde. 

WILLIAM G. BOWDOIN, Art Critic, New York Evening 
World. 

T O this question, it seems to me that there is but one 
possible answer, which is emphatically yes! As I look 
at it, the basic art requirement is permeated with estheticism, 
and the art beautiful supersedes and crowds out art that 
is debased and made hideous by immorality. 

A picture need not, of necessity, teach a great moral les¬ 
son, but when it enters into the interior decoration of a 
house, and as a mural, has to be lived with, day by day, if it 
lacks beauty and has no coherence, or if it belongs to the 
shot-to-pieces or cubical school, it logically becomes as 
sounding brass and a tinkling cymbal. 

Thus certain subjects are taboo in art, and brutality, 
crime, dissections and the like, take themselves out of legiti¬ 
mate art interpretations quite as certainly as does immoral 
art, even if it emanates from a recognized master and a 
great technician. 

Immoral art may have an excuse for existence as a crime 
exhibit for a jury, or as an historical record of importance, 
but even in such cases it becomes tinctured with impurity 
and is diverted into a specialty and a side-line. 

7i 


THE WANDERER 

A beautiful landscape, a fine marine, a superb still-life, 
a masterly figure piece, or a transcendent interior, are in¬ 
dividualistic manifestations of art, that necessarily sym¬ 
bolize morality. 

EMIL BUND. 

Art is the champion of beauty, life, and vigor! On its 
lofty path, it encounters sometimes a squirmish monster 
called “Morality,” whose hideous body supports a tiny head, 
mostly mouth, toothless, and worn from years of slander. 
When it meets Art, the virile, strong, it rids itself of all its 
envious venom. But Art, the careless youth, goes boldly 
on with rapid gait and loses soon this carcass, which slowly 
dies in its own putrid, deathly stench. 

Listen, ye moral-mongers, ye preachers of suppression 
and negation! Your virtues are but barren virgins; you 
aim to purify but only putrify; your poetry is mental pov¬ 
erty; your music only bad acoustic; you try to wield the 
brush and paints, and draw hermaphrodites or saints. 

Art is too lofty for your gait—too bright for your dull 
e y es —too big for your small brain to fathom! If you be 
really sincere in your desire to uplift mankind, dig speedily 
your grave. You still might be of use as fertilizer. 

WILLIAM S. McBRIDE. 

Morality is the restrictions we put upon ourselves through 
the fear of punishment and criticism. It has nothing what¬ 
ever to do with nature; it has nothing whatever to do with 
art. The greatest art has been so-called immoral because 
it was most faithful to nature. Every old master painted 
at least one picture of “Suzanna at the Bath,” and did their 
best work upon it, and were fascinated by it, because the 
whole idea was far from the orthodox moral. Salome 
was another favorite subject, and so was Venus—usually 
portrayed quite nude, with Tannhauser arriving in the dis¬ 
tance. 


72 


THE WANDERER 


Great music has never been moral. It could not intoxi¬ 
cate if it were, and as for literature, it is most often the 
books that are marked “Not Issued to Minors” that are the 
great works of. art—“Mademoiselle de Maupin,” by Gau¬ 
tier; “Camille,” by Dumas the Younger; Rousseau’s “Con¬ 
fessions;” “Thais,” by Anatole France; the plays of Frank 
Wedekind, Brieux and Strindberg. 

Some of our greatest, most picturesque lives have not 
been so-called moral, yet would we, if we could, change the 
life of Benvenuto Cellini, of Francois Villon, of Byron, of 
Burns, of Shelley, of Benjamin Franklin, of George Sand, 
of George Eliot, or of Oscar Wilde? 

CHRIST WALTER. 

Since the interpretation of morality as pertaining to art 
is so widely different it is difficult to give a definite answer. 
To say that art should not be moral, would be equivalent 
to saying that art should be immoral. I do not think any 
artist would commit himself in this wise. 

Morality and art exist in widely different spheres. Mo¬ 
rality is based on law and necessity. Art is founded on a 
feeling of reverence and devotion. Where we have rever¬ 
ence and devotion I cannot see why law and necessity have 
the right to intrude. 

Here is where the idea of utility creeps in art, and makes 
art dogmatic and selfish, and in time would kill the true 
spirit of art. Utilitarian objects should be made beautiful 
through art, but art should never be used for utilitarian pur¬ 
poses—I consider morality utilitarian, because it is a neces¬ 
sity in the temporal world—the same holds good of religion. 
Religion should beautify all temporal ideas, but religion 
should never be used to propagate temporal desires. Here 
is where art and religion are closely allied. They have 
much more in common than art and morality. If the ques¬ 
tion to be answered were: Should art be religious ? I would 
unhesitatingly answer, yes. 


73 


THE WANDERER 


Art and religion should stand above morality. Morality 
is temporal, art spiritual. Anything spiritual cannot be 
bound by temporal laws. True art is a form of worship. 
Morality is a command; a law to hold the common desires in 
check. He who cannot appreciate the highest in art must 
needs be tied to the laws of morality. 


WHAT WAS THE RELIGION OF 
MARK TWAIN? 

In his later days Mark Twain wrote a book entitled 
“What Is Manf” It is the confession of his despon¬ 
dency and its elucidation. But Mark Twain knew that 
this was not the sort of book that his American readers 
wanted. So out of deference to their taste, or lack of 
confidence in his own, he hid it among his papers where 
it, with “The Mysterious Stranger,” was discovered at 
his death. Until the end he held forward to the public 
gaze the painted and powdered visage of a clown. 

—Waldo Frank in Our America. 

T. K. LOWRY. 

M ARK TWAIN had no religion. His interest was not 
centered in the things of the life beyond, but in the 
things about him—the things he could see and touch. He 
believed the best and greatest thing to do was to give as 
much pleasure to those living with him in this life and to 
those who would come in the future generations—the life 
beyond, if there is any, could take care of itself. 

There is grave doubt that Mark Twain believed in a fu¬ 
ture life. He makes one of his characters say, “There is 
no God.” That this was his own thought is almost certain, 
for he had too great a mind to be deceived by the fallacies 
of creeds or religion. 


74 


THE WANDERER 


Whether he believed in a God or not, if there is a future 
life, he will surely take his place with the highest—he could 
not help it if he could not believe in a God—for he has 
spread more love over America than all the ministers put 
together. 

MRS. G. G. SCOTT. 

Mark Twain was a materialist and did not believe in free 
will. He has elaborated this theme in his essay entitled, 
“What Is Man?” In so doing he lived a far happier life 
than those who go through life banking on immortality. He 
also added much to the enjoyment of his fellowmen, and 
rightly ranks as America's best loved and most popular 
author. 

I believe we owe him our greatest debt of gratitude for 
exposing the shams of religion which he has done in his 
posthumous work, “The Mysterious Stranger.” 

FRANK HUNTINGTON 

Always sane and thoughtful, bearing in his manly heart 
the joys and sorrows of the world, laughing with all his 
might at the ridiculous, hurling shafts of satire at impos¬ 
tures sacred and profane, Mark Twain—glorious light amid 
a world of darkness—was the personification of common 
sense and his religion was the religion of this world, the 
religion of humanity. 

He read the Bibles of the world and knew them one and 
all to be pitiful records of man’s groping for light in the 
morning hours of his upward rise when ignorance still 
veiled his mind from truth. He found in our Bible amazing 
myths side by side with recitals of war and massacre—the 
childish and the monstrous—alike attributed to a god of wis¬ 
dom and love. 

His heart rebelled against the mythical God who made a 
world knowing that He would damn it, and who, then, in 
the person of His Son, who was Himself, had Himself 

75 


THE WANDERER 


crucified that a few might be saved from the hell He had 
designed for nearly all. 

Mark Twain held Christianity, properly so called the re¬ 
ligion that saves'the few and damns the many, in humane 
horror, because his mind was blessed with reason, and be¬ 
cause his heart was filled with love. His was the religion of 
humanity because he loved and could forgive his fellow men. 

In his religion, one world at a time was enough. To him, 
heaven and hell were equally mythical, and death was an 
eternal sleep. All this is plain in his books, especially “What 
Is Man ?” and “The Mysterious Stranger”, and in his biog¬ 
raphy by Abert Bigelow Paine. 

JOSEPH E. BABB. 

Albert Bigelow Paine, biographer of Mark Twain, has 
sought in his three volumes to emphasize Twain’s religious 
tolerance into religious acceptance. It is a known fact that 
the wife of Mark Twain was devoutly religious and that 
he idolized her, and his constant efforts were always toward 
pleasing her and the avoidance of causing her grief or pain. 

Again, the biographer of Mark Twain was sensible of 
the shock, to thousands to whom the famous humorist had 
become endeared. Hence the biographer’s effort to over¬ 
emphasize the religious associations of Mark Twain are so 
palpably evident throughout the biography that the critics 
exposed them to the bright glare of publicity. 

On destiny, Mark Twain gives us this: “When the first 
living atom found itself afloat on the first Laurentian sea 
the first act of that first atom led to the second act of that 
first atom, and so on down through the succeeding ages of 
all life, until, if the steps could be traced, it would be shown 
that the first act of the first atom has led inevitably to the 
act of my standing here in my dressing room at this instant 
talking to you.” Yet the biographer interprets the above 
to be predestined when it is clear that Mark Twain ascribes 
life to chance. 


76 


THE WANDERER 


In Mark Twain’s posthumous “The Mysterious Stranger”, 
Satan is made to say to Theodor: “Nothing exists; all is 
a dream. God, man, the world, the sun, the moon, the 
wilderness of stars—a dream, all a dream; they have no 
existence. Nothing exists save empty space—and you. 
And you are not you—you have no body, no blood, no bones, 
you are but a thought.” 

Mark Twain satires a God who could make good chil¬ 
dren as easily as bad, yet preferred to make bad ones. Satan 
further is made to say to Theodor: “It is true, that which 
I have revealed to you: there is no God, no universe, no 
human race, no earthly life, no heaven, no hell. It is all a 
dream.” 

No ! Mark Twain had no religion as a belief—his re¬ 
ligion was to make countless millions happy, to bring into 
the world smiles in the place of tears. 

BARBARA LAWLER. 

Mark Twain’s religion was humanity. He loved people. 
It bubbles through all his humor, his laugh and smile-pro¬ 
voking stories have nowhere the sarcasm or sharp wit which 
invariably bring hurt. Religion, in the sense that it is a fear 
of something or a dependence upon a higher being, as Dar¬ 
win put it, he had none. He did not worry about whence 
he came, nor did he fret about where he was ultimately go¬ 
ing. He lived in the “now.” He was brilliant enough to 
understand the human animal, with all its faults, virtues and 
follies, and sweet-tempered enough with it all to make us 
laugh. Is there a finer religion ? I doubt it. 

There are times when we become tired and often so dis¬ 
gusted with the world and its people that we almost hope 
for death to come and end it all—and when our contempt 
for things and people as they are seems to tear at our vitals. 
I am no exception. I, too, get into these moods, and when 
that happens, all I need to bring back my faith in the pos¬ 
sibility of a brighter future for the sick world is to read 

77 


THE WANDERER 

something of Mark Twain’s. He rends the clouds and helps 
me to see the sunshine beyond. Not only that, he makes 
the present brighter, in that I can see little patches of sun¬ 
shine right at my elbow, where before I saw only the black 
shadow of heartsickness. 

His religion of the smile, the laugh, the ever present sun¬ 
shine, is the finest religion there is, because he makes the 
“now” so easy to bear, not in meek submission to a higher 
law and the hope of something wonderful after this life, 
but because he shows us how to grin at many things that 
otherwise would be hard to bear, and so brings real com¬ 
fort, real understanding, into our lives. With that under¬ 
standing comes love, love for our fellows in this earth 
of chaos, we judge less harshly, and so have less to con¬ 
demn. Mark Twain’s religion was humanity. 

THOMAS RALSTON. 

Mark Twain did not believe in the teachings of any creed 
or book; his only religion was the love of humanity. He 
did not believe in a God, for he did not see how a God could 
make bad children when He could have made them all good. 
Like Romain Rolland, he was a pacifist, and in “The Mys¬ 
terious Stranger” he makes one of the characters say this 
about war: 

“There never has been a just war, never an honorable 
one—on the part of the instigator of the war. I can see a 
million years ahead, and this rule will never change in so 
many as half a dozen instances. The loud little handful— 
as usual—will shout lor war. The pulpit will—warily and 
cautiously—object at first; the great, big, dull bulk of the 
Nation will rub its sleepy eyes and try to make out why 
there should be a war, and will say, earnestly and indig¬ 
nantly, ‘It is unjust and dishonorable, and there is no neces¬ 
sity for it.’ 

“Then the handful will shout louder. A few fair men 
on the other side will argue and reason against the war with 

78 


THE WANDERER 


speech and pen, and at first will have a hearing and be ap¬ 
plauded ; but it will not last long; those others will out-shout 
them, and presently the anti-war audiences will thin out and 
lose popularity. Before long you will see a curious thing; 
the speakers stoned from the platform, and free speech 
strangled by hordes of furious men who in their secret 
hearts are still at one with the stoned speakers—as earlier— 
but they do not dare to say so. And now the whole Nation— 
pulpit and all—will take up the war cry, and shout itself 
hoarse, and mob any man who ventures to open his mouth; 
and presently such mouths will cease to open. 

“Next the statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the 
blame on the Nation that is attacked, and every man will be 
glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently 
study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; 
and thus he will by and by convince himself that the war is 
just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after 
this process of grotesque self-deception. ,, 


ARE THOUGHTS VISIBLE OR 
INVISIBLE? 

* 7 / is true, that which 1 have revealed to you: There 
is no God, no universe, no human race, no earthly life, 
no heaven, no hell. It is all a dream—a grotesque and 
foolish dream. Nothing exists but you. And you are 
but a thought—a vagrant thought, a useless thought, a 
homeless thought, wandering forlorn among empty 
eternities.” 

—Mark Twain in The Mysterious Stranger. 

MICHAEL WHITTY, Editor, Azoth. 

I T goes without saying that to the physical eyes thoughts 
are quite invisible, but we know well enough that there is 
a psychic sight which we may call psychic eyes, developed in 

79 


THE WANDERER 


some persons and probably inherent in all, whereby the 
thought form can be seen. 

A distinction must be made between a thought and a 
thought form. In actuality a thought, like the soul, is ever 
invisible to any kind of sight; that which is sensed in both 
cases is the vehicle of the thought or soul, viz., the form. 

A thought is a vibration of extremely subtle matter, called 
by many mental or mind matter. This vibration gathers 
round itself molecules of this matter which respond to its 
particular vibration, and hence takes definite form and color 
according to the thought. This thought-form may be evan¬ 
escent or more or less permanent according to the strength 
and definiteness of its generation. 

There is an unanimity among those who are sufficiently 
clairvoyant that they can see thought forms, and.they are 
one in stating that thoughts of anger are colored red, though 
they differ somewhat in describing the colors of other emo¬ 
tions. 

H. TULLSEN. 

Thoughts are invisible because they are functions only— 
activities of the brain. A thought can no more be perceived 
by the eye than a “push,” though the one that pushes and 
the thing pushed may be seen. “Push” merely indicates 
how a change is affected, and so it is with “thought.” 

“Decay” is a name for changes that take place in a dead 
brain; “thought” is a name for changes that occur in a live 
one. Thoughts are not parts of the brain—they are what 
that organ “does.” We may see the effects of thoughts, 
but not the thoughts themselves. 

Thought is a name used to designate the activities that re¬ 
sult from physico-chemical changes going on in the brain- 
cells. The brain is matter, and the thoughts are a mode of 
motion or form of energy connected therewith. 

A body may have motion as a whole, or its parts may be 
80 


THE .WANDERER 

in motion, but the motion is not a thing, not an entity: It is 
an activity. 

An automobile is a vehicle that gives us a ride. The brain 
is a vehicle that gives us a thought. We and the automo¬ 
bile are visible, but not the ride; the brain is a tangible thing, 
but not the thoughts. When the auto stops, where is the 
ride ? Likewise, when the brain ceases its labors, thought is 
gone. 

“Where is the music when the lute lies low?” We may 
see, or otherwise sense, objects or things that exhibit func¬ 
tionings or qualities, but the functionings and qualities are 
not things-in-themselves, and cannot be perceived as such. 
Thought, in short, is a form of energy, and changes into 
some other form of energy when the matter of which it is a 
function is no longer fit for thinking. As a corollary of its 
definition, thought must ever remain invisible. 

CHARLES F. HAANEL. 

Thought is a spiritual activity; in fact, it is the only ac¬ 
tivity which the spiritual man possesses. It is formed by 
converting static mind into dynamic mind, and is therefore 
mind in motion, the same as wind is air in motion. We 
cannot see wind, but we can feel its effects. Likewise, we 
cannot see thought, but the effect of thought is just as cer¬ 
tain. 

The same analogy indicates the power of concentration. 
While air has little or no force in static form, when concen¬ 
trated, it has the power to stop an entire train weighing 
thousands of tons and going at a tremendous velocity. It 
is exactly*the same with thought in its ordinary form, it has 
little or no effect, but concentrated on any problem, nothing 
is impossible. 

For instance, the idea of democracy was but a thought 
in the minds of a few men in Cromwell’s army. When 
transferred to congenial soil in America, it resulted in the 

81 


THE WANDERER 

war of independence. Again, the idea against the subjec¬ 
tion of women was but the thought of a handful of idealists; 
nevertheless, it has already achieved a momentum which is 
irresistible. 

So, while thoughts are invisible, the effect of thought is 
the most visible thing in existence. 

F. HOMER CURTIS, M. D., co-founder of the Order of 
Christian Mystics. 

Thoughts are visible to those who have eyes to see, while 
the effects of their creative power are visible to all. 

Every thought creates a particular form in the substance 
of the mental world. This form is characteristic of the 
idea conceived, and is clear and definite to the extent that 
the thought producing it was clear cut and definite. The 
thought-form is strong and powerful or weak and impo¬ 
tent in proportion to the amount of will-power embodied in 
it and the number of times it is repeated. 

In other words, if the thought was vague and indefinite 
the resulting thought-form will be cloudy and vague in 
shape; if the will was weak and the thought not repeated 
frequently its life will be short and its effects feeble. 

These thought-forms react upon and find expression 
through their creators, and also upon and through other 
minds which are attuned or affinitized to their keynote or 
rate of vibration. 

These thought-forms have been photographed by Dr. 
Baraduc of Paris and also have been made to crystallize in 
certain salt solutions by experimenters in this country, thus 
proving in a material way that their shape is not a mere 
theory. 

Some eyes are so sensitive that they can see and recognize 
shades of color which are invisible to others. In a similar 
way there are those whose inner sense of sight is so sensi¬ 
tive that it is able to respond to the much higher vibration 
82 


THE WANDERER 

of the thought-forms, hence can literally see them. Such 
persons are called “clear-seers” or clairvoyants. 

But there is another sense in which thoughts are visible, 
and that is that they become visible in the expression of 
those who are thinking or responding strongly to them. 
When certain classes of currents of thought are expressed 
repeatedly they carve themselves in the living flesh or leave 
their impress upon the faces of those who give expression 
to them. 

P. L. HOECKEL. 

Thoughts seem at first glance to have the quality of visi¬ 
bility. Our President frequently observes that he has been 
struck by a thought. We grasp thoughts, some of us are 
carried along by thought. 

But after more mature deliberation, can any one think of 
ever having seen one? It is marked among scientific men 
that thought is not indigenous to this Continent. In Eu¬ 
rope thought plays an important role in things. The most 
honorable Sir Quincy Fumble-Peddington, of his Majesty's 
High Court of King’s Bench, unlike our own jurists, com¬ 
mences his legal opinions thus: “We think that the law,” 
“our thought on this matter,” etc. 

What effect would the absence of thought have on our 
National life? None. It has none now and is merely an 
ornament for social teas. The great virtue of the American 
mind is its independence of thought. 

Suppose, for a moment, that we shall decide as a Nation 
to let thought govern our activities for a year. Our greatest 
institutions would fall. Leaders of the anti-thought move¬ 
ment would be dethroned. The great game of politics 
would be a memory. Society gone, chambers of commerce 
disappeared, capitalists abolished, we were indeed in a hope¬ 
less case. 

My good friends the new-thoughters give undue credence 
to thinking. They think they think and that is as near to 

83 


THE WANDERER 1 


thinking as we get in this part of the country. It is not 
thinking at all, it is an abnormality of the subconscious. 


SHOULD THE RED FLAG BE 
PROHIBITED? 

“’Cause Vs wicked—I is. I’s mighty wicked, any¬ 
way, / can’t help it’’ 

—Harriet Beecher Stowe in “Uncle Tom’s Cabin.” 
GEORGE A. COLEMAN. 

S HOULD the red flag be prohibited? Undoubtedly it 
should. The red flag is everywhere known as the 
emblem of revolution—in every age it has stood for the 
new order as opposed to the old. 

America, itself the product of revolution, should certainly 
prohibit anything further in this direction, for America is 
the acme of social development, the very last word in social 
progress. There is not now nor ever will be anything bet¬ 
ter. 

The red flag of revolution has been prohibited by the 
Legislature of Pennsylvania, and there is no reason why we 
should question the wisdom of this body, since it is con¬ 
trolled largely by Senator Penrose and other disinterested 
representatives of the Pennsylvania Railroad, the Standard 
Oil Company and similar philanthropic institutions. 

Of course, it is entirely possible that prohibiting the red 
flag may not abolish revolution. The destroying of Christ 
did not abolish Christianity, nor did the burning of Bruno 
achieve the results which the enemies of science hoped it 
would. As a matter of fact, every movement has thrived 
on persecution heretofore, but we should not be deterred 
by this knowledge, remembering that “if at first you don’t 
succeed, try again.” 


84 


THE WANDERER 


Undoubtedly we should abolish the red flag. Also we 
should burn all witches, jail all who hold opinions contrary 
to the established order and, as eloquently stated by Ole 
Hanson, “prepare graveyards instead of conferences for all 
Socialists and radicals.” 

MICHAEL GALVIN. 

A colored man once said, “When the white man sees his 
flag, he is intoxicated with the exuberance of his own ver¬ 
bosity.” 

Should the red flag be prohibited? Yes, and all other 
flags! For flags keep up the spirit of war, and tease the 
wild bull called imagination. I believe flags and churches 
are harmful to mankind, because in looking them over, we 
are not allowed to use our reason—all we need to do is to 
take off our hats. 

I agreed with Paine, who said: “The world is my coun¬ 
try; to do good is my religion.” And I am sure that men 
killed under any flag will be a long time dead. Psycholo¬ 
gists claim that the subconscious mind does not reason, also 
that man is what he thinks; so if we are continually sug¬ 
gesting to ourselves “this flag is good, that flag is bad,” we 
will always have war. 

So far as I can see the workingman will get very little by 
flags or strikes—a Labor party at the polls is the remedy. 
In my experience I notice that a man who does his work 
right has little trouble with the United States Steel Corpo¬ 
ration—I have been working for that company nearly 19 
years. 

GRACE BUND. 

Suppression of ideas has never, up to the present, had 
quite the effect aimed at by governments wielding this club. 
The Russian Government did quite a bit of suppressing in 
its day. The red flag was “prohibited,” followers of this 
same flag were “prohibited” from holding meetings, from 

8s 


THE WANDERER 


distributing literature, from making speeches, in fact, all 
sorts of “prohibiting” was done. The result was that one 
day the Government awoke from its dream of power, to 
find that the flame suppressed from the top by the greatest 
police system in the world, swept all before it. 

The Russian Czaristic regime had just naturally “pro¬ 
hibited” itself out of existence. 

Revolution is in the very air you breathe to-day, and when 
every other Nation of the civilized world is adopting a 
more liberal attitude to meet this contingency, are the 
ignorant and stupid officials of a country which was once 
called the “cradle of liberty,” going to continue to retrogress, 
adopting one after the other, standards of decadent mon¬ 
archy? They but hoist themselves upon their own petard. 

Suppress the red flag from flying openly, and so surely 
will it do so. Sub rosa—a la Russia! 

MARGARET TANSEY. 

No, by all means. Prohibition never destroyed anything. 
It has not destroyed the liquor traffic, or robbery, or im¬ 
morality. The red flag is a symbol of revolution, of an¬ 
archy. Why prohibit the red flag, when its presence is in¬ 
dicative of the thing to fight against. 

There is as much intelligence in advocating the abolition 
of the symptoms of measles or diphtheria. Were I in the 
Legislature, I would advocate the use of the red flag, for 
then it could be told where sedition was breeding. Anyway, 
a red flag can be made of an old undershirt in a few mo¬ 
ments, so it is not possible to abolish it without abolishing 
all materials of that color. 

As for abolishing the thing that the red flag stands for, 
that is a different matter. I am in favor of that. I favor 
abolishing Bolshevism, and anarchy and revolution. I favor 
hanging every man who causes unrest and agitation. The 
Government is working to that end. 

86 


THE WANDERER 


I understand that there are about 900 I. W. W/s and con¬ 
scientious objectors in prison at Leavenworth. I would let 
them all out and put in every profiteer. That would abolish 
the red flag quicker than imprisonment of revolutionists. 

JAMES WALDO FAWCETT, Editor, The Modernist. 

The question should be, “Can the Red Flag be prohib¬ 
ited ?” And the answer is, “No; it cannot be/’ Mayor Hy- 
lan, Tammany chief magistrate of the noble city of New 
York, thought the board of aldermen could prevent the ex¬ 
hibition of the scarlet symbol of Universal* Brotherhood by 
passing an ordinance. The very next day East Side rad¬ 
icals paraded in force to show how easily such “legislation” 
can be defied. The fact is that any moth-eaten assembly 
of crooked politicians and cheap demagogues, meeting in any 
graft-ridden capital in any shabby, overworked State, can 
solemnly say, “Behold, honorable brethren, this Red Flag 
is the symbol of something about which we know horribly 
little and from which undoubtedly we have much to fear, 
and while we cannot hope to smash the thing for which it 
stands, or exterminate the countless thousands to whom it 
is dear, we can at least spit upon this banner and say that it 
must not be shown where respectable, grafter-fearing people 
walk abroad.” 

But passing a “law” is a useless performance. The Red 
Flag is a precious heritage from radical father to radical 
son; it stands for the comradeship of workers everywhere. 
It means humanity, fraternity, justice, co-operation, love. It 
is here to stay, to stay so long as one group of men sit on the 
backs of other men, and make profit from the latter’s toil. 

JAMES MONTGOMERY. 

If I had my way, every man carrying a red flag in a pa¬ 
rade would be shot down, because that flag stands for vio- 

87 


THE WANDERER 

lence and disorder. No man has a right to carry a red flag, 
because the red flag is the symbol of discontent, and there 
is no reason for discontent under the Stars and Stripes, 
thanks to the providence of God and the protective tariff, 
which has made us prosperous and great. 

If people who wish to wave the red flag in our faces were 
condemned to hard labor on the stonepile, perhaps they 
would realize the beauty of liberty, which is guaranteed by 
our Constitution to all who obey the laws of society. 
Lynching is condemned by many, but it is not so burning a 
shame as this brazen flaunting of anarchy’s red rag before 
the eyes of law-abiding citizens. 

What law gives these reds the right to insult our coun¬ 
try’s most sacred institutions? I heard one Socialist say, 
“What harm does it do to any one to carry a red flag?” I 
told him, “It will do you a lot of harm if I catch you at it.” 

There is only one way to curb these advocates of violence. 
Give them no quarter, do not argue with them, treat ’em 
rough. Order and obedience must be preserved and the 
red flag, an affront to freedom, must be suppressed. 

JOHN McC. SCOTT. 

Red is a color that excites. It is the color that inflames 
the mad bull. It is the color which was used in the awful 
French Revolution to work the people into a blood-boiling 
fit. There has never been a time in the history of the world 
when the people needed more quiet than they do right now, 
and I think every precaution should be taken to keep the 
people still. 

Parades with flying red flags flaunting in the breeze are 
like applying matches to oil. If the oil is left alone it will 
not ignite and is perfectly harmless, but with the match 
applied it may do a great amount of damage. 

Under ordinary circumstances I Would say let the red 
flag wave, but now with the world in a sad state of unrest, 


THE WANDERER 


I think the red flag should not only be prohibited, but every 
one displaying it should be arrested. However, there does 
not seem to be any danger of it being displayed, as the big 
majority of us are too patriotic and the rest are afraid. 

DAVID GILCHRIST (Lord Ballyrot). 

“Should the red flag be prohibited?” 

My werd, doncherknow, I should bally well siye it should. 
Not only should it be prohibited, doncherknow, but it should 
likewise be inhibited, contributed, exhibited, distributed, at¬ 
tributed and subjected to every other limitation, constraint, 
distraint and impediment that can be described by all the 
words in the English vocabulary ending in “ted.” 

What, I should like to awsk, was the purpose of the Be¬ 
nighted States in crossing the broad expanse of the mighty 
ocean that separates the Orient from the Occident if it was 
not to make the world safe for Dem-Mock-Racy and the Be¬ 
nighted States safe for the Dem-o-crats? I should here 
like to siye a werd about the Dem-i-johns but I have jolly 
well been informed, (or outformed, I cawn’t just grawsp 
the outlandish expressions used by the bloomin’ butchers of 
His Majesty’s, the Kink’s English), that to do so might lead 
to a misunderstanding, more especially among the Demo¬ 
crats, which would precipitate a stampede on his Majesty’s 
cellar at his Royal Embassy at Washington, D. C., doncher¬ 
know, my werd, really, bah jove! 

And what, may I awsk, is the significance of hoisting the 
red flag? It is a challenge of defiance to battle, implying 
also that no quarter, (or any other small change) will be 
given, and that will nevah do, I siye, that will nevah do. 

Again, how bally well often have I, a titled representative 
of his gracious majesty, stood at one of your bloomin’ street 
crossings, respectfully awaiting the passing by of one of 
your unsightly pig iron trucks, only to have a red rag 
flaunted, defiantly, I siye defiantly, mind you, in my, the 

89 


THE WANDERER 


Kink’s personal representative’s face, from the base material 
overhanging the rear of the said truck. Such practices 
should be discontinued if you are to attain to that high 
degree of Dem-Mock-Racy hoped for, for you, by his 
gracious majesty, the Kink-uv-Gryte Britting. 

Transcending all of the foregoing, which I bally well be¬ 
lieve is preponderantly incontrovertible, is the memory, pain¬ 
ful to his gracious majesty, Kink Gawrge, the Fifth, that it 
was the same unsightly red flag that was flouted in the face 
of all law and order, and progress, and civilization, and 
Christianity, and above all else, the face of His Majesty’s 
distinguished ancestor, Kink Gawrge, the Third, on the 
flinty slopes of Bunker Hill, in the year of grace 1776. 

All those in favor of abolishing the red flag please siye 
aye! All those opposed siye no! The Kink-uv-Gryte 
Britting having six votes in the league of nations, which 
he votes aye, and the Benighted States having but one vote, 
which is too many, which it votes no! The motion is 
carried. The red flag is not only prohibited, it is abolished 
altogether! My werd doncherknow. 


HAVE DOGS AND HORSES SOULS? 

From some magazine years ago: 

“Davy, her knight, her hero, was dead — 

Low in the dust was his silken head — 

‘Isn’t there Heaven (she was but seven) 

*Isn’t there Heaven for dogs?’ she said ” 

JOHN S. RITENOUR, Superintendent Western Pennsyl¬ 
vania Humane Society. 

W E know, in a general way, the soul to be the Godlike 
quality of humanity. Animals have all the natural 
discriminating faculties of man—seeing, hearing, feeling, 
90 


THE WANDERER 


smelling and tasting. They do as told, showing that they 
understand; they have memory; they hate as well as love, 
and of these twin sentiments one is as enduring with them 
as the other. Often animals voluntarily and unexpectedly 
do things so rational as to lead one to believe they possess 
reasoning power. 

But animals know nothing about morality or spirituality, 
and here is the vast distinction that separates their limited 
soul from the unlimited human soul. There was a time in 
the history of our race, says science, when human life was 
of a wholly animal nature. But it has evolved or acquired 
a soul, or knowledge of a soul—a moral and spiritual per¬ 
ceptiveness and quality. This animals have never done. 

The earth knew no real soul until the Creator made man 
and gave him the soul-attribute to guide and exercise his 
power within the restrictions of his dominion. Some hu¬ 
mans often show as little or indeed less soulfulness than 
animals—their social instincts being symbolized by the claw 
and the tooth; and their personal associates are generally 
aware of it, too. 

There are many “civilized” humans just as soulless as 
wild animals. 

MATHILDA A. WALTERS, Executive Secretary, 
National Anti-Vivisection League. 

Since the One Life, God, is the life of all, whence all have 
come, and whither all return, all animals may be considered 
as having souls. They have not as yet received the third 
great outpouring of the life of the Logos, which brings them 
into the human kingdom but by then contact with man 
they are either helped or hindered in their evolutionary prog¬ 
ress. 

Man, who stands in the position of God to these younger 
souls, has for so long abused the trust reposed in him that 
the whole animal kingdom is dominated by fear and enmity 
toward him. In the measure that we love and protect the 

91' 


THE WANDERER 


dumb creation, in that measure are we helping future hu¬ 
manity, for the instincts instilled in them now will be car¬ 
ried with them into the human evolution. 

It would be impossible to believe that after all the love, 
devotion and suffering of these helpless, voiceless ones, there 
would not be a balancing of the scales of justice, or that 
they, sparks of the Divine, which are but a little lower in 
evolution than we, and very often endowed with truer, more 
unselfish love than man, should be here for nothing more 
than as victims of man’s cruelty, and whose ultimate fate 
would be annihilation. 

REV. JEFFREY JENNINGS, M. A. 

The story is told of a court trial over a dog. It seems 
an old man owned a dog which had been for a time com¬ 
rade through very severe trials. The lawyer for the old 
man told about the dog’s love for its master. The Court lis¬ 
tened in tears. A heavy sentence was imposed upon the 
slayer. This story is a classic. Why ? Because it appeals 
to all men everywhere, and at all times. Most every one 
has had a pet animal at some time in his life. Some pets 
have become like children. Great sorrow is felt over their 
death. The loss of my own boyhood friends; cat Ben 
Franklin, dog Pete, and white rats, I still mourn. I should 
like to see them all again. Will I ? I don’t know. Philip 
Brooks said he would not dare say, because not enough 
revelation has been given to us about animals. A soul 
has the capacity of knowing God. We do not know whether 
animals have this capacity. We rather think not, accord¬ 
ing to all indications. A soul can have faith, hope and 
charity. A soul is progressive, always striving for greater 
happiness. A soul is never satisfied with its present lot. 
It has been said of a doughboy that he is “always anxious 
to be where he is not.” A soul makes history. The races 
hand down to posterity the experiences of the ages. We 
know that this does not happen with the animals. The 


THE WANDERER 


sum and the substance thereof the whole matter is that we 
do not know, we think not, but most of us hope that at 
least we may renew companionship with our pets. 

R. H. SANTENS, Chief Taxidermist, Carnegie 
Museum, Pittsburg, Pa. 

All will acknowledge that to a certain extent both dogs 
and horses, as well as most all living mammals and birds, 
have a certain intellectual sense of right and wrong, love 
and hate. They will risk their own life to save that of 
some human they love. It is a complete mystery as to 
whether they exist after life has departed or not. It seems 
sometimes that they certainly should get some reward for 
the heroic deeds some of them have done, for example our 
Red Cross dogs, who have braved shellfire to save the life 
of some wounded soldier. 

The look of innocence which is sometimes reflected in 
their eyes almost says that these noble creatures should 
have a. soul. 

No scientist, taxidermist or any other man can positively 
assert that a dog or horse does or does not possess a soul 
similar to that of man. 

P. B. REEVES. 

Do dogs and horses have souls? We must first see what 
the soul is. Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary says, “That 
part of man which enables him to think and which renders 
him a subject of moral government/’ The ancient Jews 
understood the soul to be the thinking or spiritual part of 
man. It is plain that the soul is the mind or it is nothing. 

The law always seeks the intent, the condition of the mind 
in determining guilt or innocence. Without mind we can do 
no wrong and cannot justly be punished either here or here¬ 
after. In reference to another life we say soul. Soul and 
mind are necessarily synonymous terms. They are identical 
in meaning. The thinking machine is responsible for our 

93 


THE WANDERER 


acts, hence the statement: “The soul that sinneth, it shall 
die.” Some Southern people used to argue that Negroes 
have no soul, and recently the Persian Government officially 
decided that women have no soul and therefore should not 
vote. Both fail to understand that fact that soul and mind 
are one. 

Dogs and horses are intelligent, thinking animals; so are 
we. They have minds capable of training. When a dog 
buries food for future use he thinks. Dogs and horses 
can tell the state of man’s mind by the tone of his voice. 
The only possible difference between the mind of man and 
the mind of dogs and horses is one of degree. They are 
both based primarily on the brain and the quantity and 
organization of the latter generally determine the strength 
and power of the mind. Since they have mind and mind 
is soul it follows that they have either or both as you may 
express it. Immortality does not concern us here, but if 
the mind or soul of man is immortal, it is a reasonable in¬ 
ference that the mind or soul of all other animals is also 
immortal. 

MRS. HARRIET F. LYNCH. 

The Humane Society might answer your question by ask¬ 
ing another, “Have men souls?” as evidences of man’s in¬ 
humanity pile up in the society’s records, and day after day 
its agents are called upon to rescue from vicious poltroons 
not only helpless dumb creatures but their own children. 

Probably the question would be dismissed as did dear old 
Father Taylor, all of whose time was devoted to good deeds, 
in his reply to some one who expressed a fear that he might 
be neglecting his own soul: 

“Bother my soul! There’s this whole world full of sor¬ 
row and suffering to be cared for.” 

One knows nothing of the language of soul to soul who 
can look into the sad eyes of dumb animals and not feel 
with tears in his own eyes the pathos and tragedy in theirs. 

94 


THE WANDERER 

He should go and “search the vastness for something he has 
lost” or never had. 

We must confess that we have read from time to time 
articles on the immortality of animals that appealed to us 
as about the most useless waste of time in which man can 
ever engage. In Ecclesiastes 3:19-20 we read: “Man hath 
no preeminence above a beast. As the one dieth so dieth 
the other; all go to one place.” If Holy Writ is to be re¬ 
garded as settling the question of immortality of animals, 
surely nothing could be more direct and positive than the 
quotation from the Bible just given. If man and beast 
should be regarded as evolutions from common stock, it may 
readily be taken for granted that they possess more or less 
of the same spirit and the same elements. If the noble 
sentiments of love, of loyalty, of deathless devotion, which 
are to be found in beasts, are to be regarded as qualities 
which deserve immortality, as much as similar traits in man, 
surely the beast must taste of life immortal, or possess the 
opportunities for development and joy in another state. 


ARE CHAMBERS OF COMMERCE 
AND BOARDS OF TRADE 
MENACES TO DEMOCRACY? 

This question was sent to The Wunderer by a lady in 
a small town. “And here is what l want to know,” she 
wrote . “Why is capital allowed to organize strongly 
into Chambers of Commerce and Boards of Trade 
without any interference , when the organizing of labor 
unions for the workingmen is so strongly opposed?” 

STOUGHTON COOLEY, Editor, The Public. 

C HAMBERS of Commerce and Boards of Trade are 
agents for promoting the production and distribution 
of wealth. As the banker gathers together the small 
95 


THE WANDERER 


savings of many persons and makes them available for 
large enterprises, so the Chamber of Commerce enables 
men of affairs to meet in cooperation with the least pos¬ 
sible loss of time and effort. And as buyers and sellers 
of produce must know the supplies available and the needs 
of the consumers, the Board of Trade offers the easiest 
means of determining the fact. 

In and of themselves Chambers of Commerce and Boards 
of Trade are labor and time saving devices to expedite 
trade. A Board of Trade is composed of a body of scien¬ 
tific trade experts who are willing to back their opinions 
with money. If evil seems sometimes to come from their 
operations, it is really due to laws that give to some men 
rights that are withheld from other men; and the effect 
would be worse if there were no Board of Trade to divide 
the shock. The menaces to democracies lie not in Cham¬ 
bers of Commerce or Boards of Trade, but in the legal privi¬ 
leges and monopolies that some men hold to the exclusion 
of others. 

WILLIAM LEE KEYES. 

Chambers of Commerce and Boards of Trade, in their 
finer development, are associations of business men for the 
promotion of common interests. If we ignore the smaller 
associations, which often are mere fraternal bodies of small 
retail merchants, itis apparent that these organizations exist 
for the benefit of big business men, and whatever is for the 
benefit of big business men, or, to say it more plainly, profi¬ 
teers, is opposed to democracy. By this I do not mean to 
defend democracy, or rather what thin porridge we get un¬ 
der that name, but whether or not democracy suffers from 
the Chamber of Commerce is apparent from the activities 
of the chambers. 

They are opposed to every progressive movement. Since 
they in themselves represent the reactionary element under 
which their profits are safeguarded, and since they are 

96 


THE WANDERER 


formed for the perpetuation of unjust advantage, it is evi¬ 
dent that a truer realization of democracy is at issue with 
their purpose. They are opposed to increased wages for 
labor, although their graft causes higher cost of living. This 
opposition takes many forms in the scale of purpose. In 
some cases, it is by misrepresenting the demands of labor 
through their press. Sometimes it is by libeling labor lead¬ 
ers, occasionally by demanding the importation of hired 
thugs and gunmen, as in our own recent railway strike. Not 
infrequently it reaches the splendid criminal attitude of the 
Chamber of Commerce of San Francisco, where the office of 
the District Attorney was controlled, the witnesses for the 
prosecution suborned and the Governor of the State influ¬ 
enced into the conviction and imprisonment for life of Tom 
Mooney. 

It will be found that the Chamber of Commerce is in con¬ 
trol through its membership of the majority of the press, 
that it directs through membership or financial support the 
same proportion of the pulpits and that even education is 
formulated by its members. Into every channel of informa¬ 
tion it pours the falsehoods which perpetuate it. It seeks to 
establish a class rule, the sacred right of the successful busi¬ 
ness man. It preaches that accumulation of wealth is due to 
enterprise and ability and conceals the profiteering which is 
the truth. It is the fruit of the tree of capitalism, and capi¬ 
talism is less democratic than autocracy. 

MAJ. HONORE J. JAXON. 

The danger to democratic institutions that may be feared 
in connection with Boards of Trade and Chambers of Com¬ 
merce arises from the fact that they provide an otherwise 
unsupplied rallying place for autocracy that is inherent in 
all private business operations. The piling of one dollar 
on another, “buying and selling and getting gain” is essen¬ 
tially a dog-eat-dog program that lines the operator up un¬ 
consciously among the “ferocious wolves” whose ultimate 

97 


THE WANDERER 


development takes form in Kaisers, Czars and dictators. 

These seekers for the profit that leads to power are prob¬ 
ably too treacherously inclined towards each other, and, 
therefore, too distrustful of each other to consciously and 
purposely enter into those “capitalistic conspiracies’’ pre¬ 
supposed in so many street corner orations. It is doubtful, 
in fact, if they conceive the machinery of special privilege 
to be so weak as to require any special protection from them 
in the way of organized supplementary force. To that 
extent, in other words, they are the victims of their own 
social prejudices. 

They have inveighed so long and so loudly on the “sacred¬ 
ness” of the “law” and “order” which protects the special 
privileges which buttress business and finance, that they 
have come to believe their own buncombe and rely on the 
supposed certainty of such a just state of society being un¬ 
der special protection of omnipotence—leaving each indi¬ 
vidual wolf at liberty to devote his entire attention to getting 
his share of the mutton. 

Boards of Trade and Chambers of Commerce, however, 
present the evil feature of getting these wolves together in 
audience where professional flag wavers can get at them, 
draw pictures of common danger, not otherwise realized, 
and finally induce the more susceptible individual mem¬ 
bers to form associations from which these professionals 
may draw easy livelihoods as permanently paid secretaries— 
a position which makes it incumbent upon them to hamper 
and thwart, in ways not too necessitous of real work, the 
united action to which exploited classes are compelled to 
resort in defense of individual existence. 

ARTHUR G. PIERCE. 

A Chamber of Commerce or a Board of Trade is an asso¬ 
ciation of men drawn from every branch of work and de¬ 
voted to the business uplift of the community. It repre¬ 
sents community solidarity, meaning that union of repre- 

98 


THE WANDERER 


sentatives from every class, professional or business activity 
as shall act to promote unselfishly to the maximum, the good 
of all. 

As such it discusses and fosters the betterment of all 
angles of community life; schools, housing, transportation, 
amusements, etc., the contentment of labor and of capital, 
recognizing these all as essential fundamentals. It coop¬ 
erates with kindred associations in other cities by active 
participation in the Chambers of Commerce of the United 
States and by this identifying its work with national in¬ 
terests. It works in harmony with the constructive acts of 
its city authorities. By these means it fosters local business 
activity as a whole, promising its volume and scope. 

A Chamber of Commerce cannot be such and at the same 
time a menace to democracy. In its work to-day the Cham¬ 
ber of Commerce of Pittsburg, our own chamber, stands 
unselfishly for the exemplification of the principles cited, 
acts on them, and far from being a menace to democracy; 
is to-day, the best example of democracy itself existing in 
the city of Pittsburg. 

A. W. SMITH, JR. 

Chambers of Commerce and Boards of Trade, similar in¬ 
stitutions, are organizations for the improvement of busi¬ 
ness conditions and the advancement of civic interests. 
Democracy is a form of Government in which the power is 
retained and exercised by the people, and not vested in any 
one interest or class. 

A Chamber of Commerce or a Board of Trade is, in itself, 
democratic and follows in principle the ideas of the Govern¬ 
ment and the people. It is an assistance in the Government 
of the people and tends to crystallize and coordinate the de¬ 
mands of the people, working always for the general good. 

Any organization, the object of which is not selfish com¬ 
mercially, or otherwise, but is the attainment of improved 
conditions in the lives and business of the people as a whole 

99 


THE WANDERER 

is certainly not a menace to society, democratic or otherwise, 
but a great benefit. Chambers of Commerce are opposed to 
autocracy by their very manner of constitution, even if 
working within an autocratic Government. 

W. J. VAN ESSEN. 

Such economic bodies as Chambers of Commerce and 
Boards of Trade are for the fundamental purpose of pro¬ 
tecting the interests of its members—especially where such 
interests have to do with commercial considerations. They 
are primarily composed of small and large business men 
(merchants and manufacturers), and will always act in 
accord with their own economic interests. Frequently they 
pass resolutions condemning individuals, groups and organi¬ 
zations that happen to be acting in a manner that business 
interests disapprove of. 

During political campaigns Boards of Trade endorse and 
support the candidacy of business men who, when in office, 
ignored the interests of the workers, especially at such times 
when business and property interests desire concessions, 
franchises and other privileges. 

During strikes when workers are demanding better wages 
or better working conditions Chambers of Commerce fre¬ 
quently oppose the workers and say, “Go back to work,” 
and some time decline to extend credit with the hope of 
breaking the strike. 

The greatest menace to a real democracy is the condition 
wherein a small number of people secure privileges and use 
same for their group advantages, thereby creating economic 
classes which eventually results in class struggles. 

Business men generally demand the right to organize, but 
object to workers organizing. They believe that Boards of 
Trade “are good” but labor unions are “bad.” They use 
their organizations to “feather their own nests” and always 
at the “dear public’s” expense. They get laws passed to 
safeguard themselves and the “public be hanged.” 

ioo 


THE WANDERER 

A real democracy, industrial democracy, will eliminate 
such privileged classes and these Chambers and Boards of 
Commerce. 

CARON COURT. 

You will find no men in the Chamber of Commerce who 
produce anything. You will find no men there who think. 
You will find not a member in its halls who ever did any¬ 
thing for society. But you will find profiteers and gold 
brick men and fake stock promoters and sweat-shop pro¬ 
prietors and oil lease promoters and politicians. It is full 
of men who call upon the Mayor to break the strike, who 
hail with joy the murder of a laborer by the State police, 
who drive fine automobiles with the profits derived from 
working women and children. It despises life and exalts 
money. It uses patriotism to cover higher prices. It em¬ 
ploys Americanism to herd 20 foreigners in a hovel. It 
seduces democracy to pass vicious legislation. 

Democracy is the rule of the people; the Chamber of 
Commerce stands for the rule of the capitalist. 


WHAT IS YOUR INTERPRETATION 
OF THE STORY OF BALAAM’S 
ASS? 

Numbers xxii:28. “And the Lord opened the mouth 
of the ass , and she said unto Balaam: ‘What have 1 
done unto thee, that thou hast smitten me three times? 9 99 

REV. RICHARD ROBERTS, Church of the Pilgrims, 
Brooklyn. 

M Y answer to the question about Balaam is brief. I 
have not read the story for some considerable time 
and I am a little foggy about the details, but my general 
101 


THE WANDERER 

view is this: I do not think the ass spoke; but it is quite 
likely that Balaam imagined he did—which would produce 
precisely the same effect. Assuming the story to be true, 
that is the simplest way out of the difficulty, and in any 
case men have imagined stranger things than hearing an 
ass speak. 

REV. A. MACKENZIE LAMB. 

Within my deepest convictions I am persuaded that the 
record of the marvelous incident, which so startles and yet 
allures and convicts us throughout the Bible, is a report 
of what actually occurred. 

When the race was largely physical and its only intelligi¬ 
ble evidence was necessarily of the same lower order, God 
descended to their level in His effort to arouse and recall 
them. Centuries later the Apostle Peter wrote, “The dumb 
ass speaking with man’s voice forebode the madness of 
the prophet.” 

Thus God used the available messenger of His will. 
ANNE SANGER. 

It appears that the story of Balaam’s ass shows very 
clearly that in those days like in the present, the average 
donkey had more sense and could see further than the aver¬ 
age man. The donkey could see further than her nose; 
Balaam couldn’t, any more than the modern voter. When 
she saw trouble ahead she knew enough to balk; the sov¬ 
ereign citizen of to-day doesn’t even hesitate. 

When Balaam smote her she jammed his leg against a 
stone wall as a gentle retaliation. That withered speck of 
humanity, to-day called the “dear people,” gets not only a 
“smote” once in a while, but quite often has his head busted 
—does he retaliate? Not much—he hasn’t got the sense of 
an ass. He doesn’t even talk back like this lady donkey did, 
which proves he doesn’t know as much. And when Balaam 
kept on smiting her she laid down, left him flat as it were. 

102 


THE WANDERER 

But your voter gets a slam in the jowl at every election, 
does he lay down and quit? No, sir; he keeps right on go¬ 
ing, walking right into the arms of trouble. Compared to 
him Balaam’s ass was a wise gazabo—she knew when she 
had enough. She opened up on Balaam and said: “Here, 
you, why all this clubbing? What’s the idea? Don’t you 
suppose I know what I’m about? Look off the end of your 
nose, dearie, and see what’s coming to you down the road 
there! You can’t drag me into this thing, not if I know 
my mind!” 

Not so with your citizen of to-day. He never quits, he 
never objects, not a chirp out of him. He goes serenely 
along, smiting and all, walking toward the sword that is 
ahead, and he doesn’t see at all! My hat is off to the she- 
donkey that made Balaam sit up and take notice. The mod¬ 
ern donkey, with Balaam on his back, is trotting blindly 
along. If he could only see what’s ahead. But then he 
hasn’t the vision of an ass! 

C. H. STEWART. 

The story of Balaam’s ass is explained by St. Peter (II 
Peter i:i6) and referred to by our Lord Jesus (Rev. ii:i4). 
Balaam was a mouthpiece of the Lord, but very unworthy. 
He should have desired to bless the Lord’s people, but be¬ 
cause of the money there was in it he sought to curse them 
and finally seduced them. Guided by Balaam, Balak ar¬ 
ranged that the wives and daughters of leading Midianites 
fall in love with the leading men of Israel and through this 
channel introduce to them the sensuous religious practices 
and idol-worship of the Midianites. The scheme succeeded 
and God’s curse on Israel followed. 

Relative to the ass speaking, should we wonder at this in 
our day of modern miracles? In millions of homes there 
are reproduced from pieces of rubber every conceivable 
sound, including the human voice, and that true to life. 

103 


THE WANDERER 


We should remember that the ass had a voice and the Angel 
of the Lord was standing by to assist in the formation of 
the words. Ass-sense in this case was good and “horse- 
sense,” even in individuals, is rather rare and highly ap¬ 
preciated among practical men. 

“JACK” THOMAS. 

The story of Balaam’s ass, to my mind, needs little or no 
interpretation. Mythology, theology and folk-lore stand at 
least 61 per cent ignorance, 30 per cent superstition and 9 
per cent basic fact. So I am convinced the ass brayed much 
after the manner of Balaam and other savages of their ilk 
in that remote period. We still have descendants of these 
asses with us and they do bray, i. e., the theological ass, the 
economic ass, the political ass, the educational ass, etc., etc., 
and the masses understand these brayings much as they un¬ 
derstand the hieroglyphics on a Babylonian monolith. 

Interpretations of Biblical myths have made unclean at 
least a billion quires of perfectly good paper, caused the 
slaughter of millions of humans and the sacrifice of untold 
quantities of animal life, so I must be on my way toward an 
understanding of modern causes, effects, etc. 

MARGARET NEWCOME. 

Balaam lived during the dispensation of the Old Mosaic 
Law when God still used miracles and signs in dealing with 
man. The outward and miraculous are not so common in 
this present dispensation of the Grace of God. 

We dare not doubt the authenticity of this story any more 
than we can doubt that God divided the sea for Israel to 
pass through and escape the pursuing Egyptians. Both 
were miracles and means of God’s grace. 

In this instance, Balaam was so desirous to possess the 
gifts and honor Balak had promised as a reward for cursing 

104 


THE WANDERER 


Israel that his covetousness predominated over his better 
judgment and he went, “And God’s anger was kindled be¬ 
cause he went/’ Num. xxii:22. 

When one is determined to go the way of his own selfish 
desires, he cannot hope to see “The angel of the Lord in 
the way.” 

It was humiliating to Balaam that a beast had more spir¬ 
itual discernment than he, whom the king was anxious to 
honor, and it was used of God to get him in the proper spir¬ 
itual condition to receive that wonderful Messianic prophecy 
in Num. xxiv:iy. * * * “There shall come a Star out 

of Jacob, and a Scepter shall rise out of Israel, and shall 
smite the corners of Moab, and destroy all the children of 
Sheth.” 

FRED WILSON. 

That’s a long way to go just to pick on a poor ass, and a 
dead one at that. Haven’t we plenty nearer at hand that 
can see the angel of the Lord just as well as she did? 

You can’t blame the poor ass for seeing things, they got 
her up before daylight, clapped a saddle on her back and 
set her staggering off down the road with Balaam full of 
curses for a people come out of Egypt. 

Give the ass credit—she saw the angel three times before 
she said a word. Even then she tried to dodge the question 
by lying down. The chump of a Balaam had no business 
smiting her just because she had sense enough to hold her 
tongue. How could he say she had mocked him, when she 
hadn’t brayed once that morning? 

If he had kept his mind on his business and hadn’t been 
so pre-occupied ruminating on the grand promises made him 
by Balak in return for the load of curses he was going to 
scatter on those poor Egyptian emigrants, he would have 
seen the angel himself, and not have had to wait for the ass 
to point out the obstacle. She didn’t need the Lord to open 

105 


THE WANDERER 

her eyes, but of course, any ass can see an angel with the 
eyes shut. 

This impossible incident points out the inadvisability of 
riding around on an ass with your eyes shut, and nothing in 
your system but curses, for when you wake up, you’ll find 
out that ass knows more than you do. 

DORIS F. WHITE. 

I believe the story of Balaam’s ass, because I have faith, 
and faith is the assent of the understanding to any truth. 
Religious faith is assent to the truth of Divine revelation 
and the events of the doctrines contained in it. This may 
be merely historical, without producing any effect upon our 
lives; and it is then the dead faith, such as even the devils 
have. But a living or saving faith not only believes the 
great miracles to be true, but embraces them with all the 
heart and affections. 

I do not believe the ass knew that he was speaking nor 
do I believe that the ass knew the angel was a real angel. 
To him it was merely a something that was in his way, and 
the whole thing was done by the Lord to have an effect upon 
the wicked Balaam. 

To me the story points out a great moral lesson—keep 
your eyes open for the angel of the Lord. Also, I might 
add, do not be a scoffer, for, remember, there is a hell. 

JOSEPH HENRY. 

The Biblical story of Balaam’s ass, while true, is sym¬ 
bolical of a great truth. It is that asses frequently speak. 
When a great man in public life is “ridden” by the public, 
he speaks and complains of the burden upon him. How 
many of our best statesmen are in this situation? In 
fact, the more a man speaks, the more does the public 
recognize that he is an ass. Moral: Keep quiet. 

106 


THE WANDERER 




IS IT NECESSARY FOR MEN TO 
WEAR COATS IN HOT 
WEATHER, AND WHY COL¬ 
LARS? 


“Vanity of vanities , said the preacher; all is vanity” 


—Ecclesiastes xii:8. 


COL. W. D. MANN, Editor, Town Topics. 

S the editor of Town Topics, which is recognized as 



the arbiter in social etiquette and custom, you ask me 
this question: “Is it necessary for men to wear coats in hot 
weather, and why collars ?” 

The excellent physical condition of many savage peoples, 
who know no clothes, proves that it is not necessary for men 
to wear anything. Civilization brought along with its other 
characteristics, dress which is sometimes attended with dis¬ 
comfort. Wearing coats in hot weather is not always a de¬ 
light. Whether men should wear them or not depends en¬ 
tirely upon local conditions. At the Casino in Newport, a 
gentleman would hardly appear without a coat, and cer¬ 
tainly not at dinner in a private house; but in the Adiron- 
dacks I have sat at the dinner table of a millionaire society 
woman, in an outing shirt in common with the other men 
guests. 

In matters of dress, some of Fashion’s edicts might be 
best honored in the breach. There is a total lack of indi¬ 
viduality or picturesqueness about the dress of men, par¬ 
ticularly in this country. All wear the same style of hat, 
the same four-in-hand necktie, whether they become the 
wearer or not. Maybe the war, and the so general wear¬ 
ing of uniforms will bring about modifications in men’s ap¬ 
parel; if not, time will. 


107 


THE WANDERER 


Fifty years ago, had a rider appeared in Rotten Row 
without a top hat, he would have been stared at as a mon¬ 
strosity. Ten years ago, had he appeared there with such 
a hat, it would have attracted remark, as there had gen¬ 
erally been adopted for riding costume the American straw 
or slouch hat. 

So, the answer to “Is it necessary for men to wear coats 
in hot weather ?” must be dependent upon where the men 
are, and the fashion there prevailing. 

W. E. WALSH. 

Collars, as we all know, are designed primarily to conceal 
collar buttons and shirt bands. The latter can, of course, 
be just as effectively concealed by bandana handkerchiefs, 
towels, portions of lace curtain and the like, or the buttons 
can be removed and the offending band rolled in. Rolling 
in the band, however, results in a decollete effect, which, in 
my humble opinion, is not in harmony with the male style 
of neck. Better still, if we were as sensible as the women, 
we could in very hot weather discard the collar and hide 
the buttons with furs. 

Coats were originally invented to hide shirts and sus¬ 
penders. When man defied the laws of gravity by substi¬ 
tuting belts for suspenders, a determined effort was made 
to discard the coat in hot weather. It failed, of course, for 
coats are full of pockets, and pockets are full of useful 
things which in these highly civilized days man must be able 
to summon to his aid instantly. The inside pocket is needed 
for insurance policies, stock certificates in Delaware corpo¬ 
rations, Liberty bonds, Baltimore and Ohio Railroad time 
tables, your wife’s letters to be mailed, check book and 
pocketbook containing money and membership cards show¬ 
ing dues paid in various lodges up to the years 1911. The 
other coat pockets are required for newspapers, “no beer, no 
work” pamphlets, handkerchiefs, knives, keys, cigar cutter, 

108 


THE WANDERER 


tobacco, salted peanuts, milk chocolate and small change. Of 
course, these necessities can be distributed among the trous¬ 
ers’ pockets, but in such event one must wear the coat to 
hide the effect. 

The stores are filled with inexpensive Palm Beach suits 
and suits of similar material. They are cool, wear well and 
look well. With Palm Beach suits and soft collars one can 
be comfortable in the hottest weather. Therefore, I am of 
opinion that the collar and coat question is merely an aca¬ 
demic one and should be turned over to the college pro¬ 
fessors so that books can be written on the subject. 

EDITH M. WELCH. 

Men evidently are just as much victims of fashion as 
are women. It hurts a man to think he is dressed differ¬ 
ently from other men. No man or group of men have yet 
been brave enough to be pioneers in the breaking of this 
custom of wearing coats and collars regardless of comfort. 
To be in style it is necessary to wear coats. 

A man who dares public opinion and appears without a 
coat on a warm day looks comfortable and feels comfortable 
too, but he is not given a welcome reception everywhere he 
may. happen to go, for instance into the theater or in the 
hotel. If they were assured of the same treatment in all 
places they might venture to break this custom. Even some 
of the ladies have expressed themselves as being unwilling 
to appear in public with a. gentleman that is coatless. Just 
why ladies would deny this comfort to men when they are 
dressed so coolly themselves is difficult to explain. Who 
can understand a woman? 

A coat carries many conveniences such as receptacles 
where everything imaginable can be stored. A coat also 
covers a multitude of sins sometimes in the way of soiled 
or frayed linen. It seems to be entirely up to the men 
whether they are “to be or not to be” hot. 

109 


THE WANDERER 


BEE W. AARONS. 

Let's be sensible. Perhaps if the men will discard their 
coats the women may be induced to discard their furs. I 
believe women only bundle themselves all up in their sum¬ 
mer furs because they see the stronger sex going forth to 
battle with the sun’s rays garbed in a heavy, tight coat. Of 
course there are a lot of old fogy women who wouldn t wear 
furs on a hot day, and occasionally a man of the same class 
will venture forth naked as to coat. The gamut of sneers 
they both have to run. Men’s shirts this season are run¬ 
ning to such gay stripes and cute plaids it’s a great pity to 
conceal them and every one knows a good silk shirt costs as 
much as any first-class blouse, so why hide the evidence 
of your prosperity, and you can leave your coat safely at 
home with the moths. And there are so many nice little 
accessories to go with your shirt de luxe, such as belt 
pins, belt buckles, fancy initials, and mayhap, who can 
tell, lingerie clasps. But I say let the individual suit his 
taste and fancy, as with or without coats men are a con¬ 
tending factor in our daily life to be met with our sweet¬ 
est smile. As to collars, well, a man without a collar is in 
the same category as a woman with curl papers, they 
simply do not belong. 


no 


THE WANDERER 


DID BACON WRITE 
SHAKESPEARE? 

“Think how Bacon shined, 

The wisest, brightest, meanest of mankind” 

—Alexander Pope, in “Essay on Man.” 

DANIEL FROHMAN. 

O, Bacon did not write the plays of Shakespeare. Ben 
-** Jonson, who was the private secretary of Bacon, paid 
an immortal tribute to Shakespeare’s genius, after the 
latter’s death. 

EDWIN MARKHAM. 

Did Bacon write Shakespeare? He didn’t! You can’t 
make the didn’t too emphatic. You may print it in caps 
on the hight front of a railway cliff for all the world to see. 

First, let it be said that the so-called Bacon cryptogram, 
said to exist in some of Shakespeare’s dramas, is a mere 
bubble of the fanatical brain. I fancy that it would be no 
great difficulty to find a cryptogram in Bacon’s “Advance¬ 
ment of Learning,” a cryptogram that would prove that 
Will Shakespeare wrote that learned work! Let us relegate 
the cryptogram to the realm of the sea serpent and other 
mythic monsters. 

Second, we do not find in the admitted writing of Bacon 
any of that glory of expression so profusely scattered over 
the pages of the Shakespearean dramas. His essays have 
passages of notable force and elegance, but never that 
splendor of poetic expression we would have a right to 
expect in the author of “Hamlet,” of “The Tempest,” and 
of “The Midsummer Night’s Dream.” 

Third, we are told that Shakespeare had only a grammar 
hi 


THE WANDERER 

school education—had little Latin and less Greek. Granted: 
but the Baconians overlook one thing, the all-important 
thing: Shakespeare had genius. A grammar school educa¬ 
tion, plus genius, is all that is needed to write dramas as 
great as those mighty ones that appear under the name of 
Will Shakespeare. 

ROBERT B. MANTELL. 

Did Bacon write Shakespeare’s plays? Why ask that 
question of a wanderer, like yourself, when it has been 
answered in a book by one of your own city—the best little 
book on Shakespeare in a hundred that I’ve read? 

No, Bacon did not write Shakespeare’s plays. Nobody 
says he did except a few hair-splitting lawyers who take de¬ 
light in proving an impossible case, and a few estimable 
ladies who might be better employed hunting holes in socks 
than hunting ciphers in books. 

All the volumes written to show that Bacon wrote Shake¬ 
speare are either unreadable or unconsciously humorous. 
These great plays—humanity’s grandest heritage of genius 
—were written by the lad who came from Stratford town 
to London, became an actor, and a share-owner in the 
Globe playhouse, and past middle age retired to Stratford 
to live the life of an English country gentleman. Whoever 
doubts this would “doubt truth to be a liar.” 

But why dispute about the authorship? We have the 
plays, whoever wrote them. We should argue less about 
them—read them more, go oftener to see them. Ah, you 
will say, Mantell is talking business. But I have been in 
Pittsburg this season, so I’m absolved. Again I say, read 
and hear Shakespeare, and forget all about Bacon except 
at breakfast. 

WALLACE BYRNE. 

There is more to be said on the affirmative side of this 
question than appears at first glance. A number of years 

112 


THE WANDERER 

ago a prominent American magazine printed a number of 
articles which called forth much discussion and were quite 
convincing that Bacon had a side to his story. 

Bacon s superior education and culture, according to 
the author of these articles, made it seem almost certain 
that of the two, Bacon alone could have written the plays 
attributed to Shakespeare. Bacon’s political position was 
such that one can readily see why the writer of such 
splendid philosophical works as his did not want to be 
known as a writer of mere plays. 

ALLEN P. ROSS. 

The question is so old and hackneyed that it hardly 
bears discussion. Besides it can never be exactly solved 
to the absolute satisfaction of all. For my own part, I 
am about as convinced that Bacon did the writing of the 
so-called Shakespearean plays as I am convinced that 
Shakespeare wrote them. So much mist and haze sur¬ 
rounds this period that even the theory advanced that 
Christopher Marlowe was the author of the famous plays 
does not seem an absolute impossible one. Marlowe’s poem, 
“Come live with me and be my love,” is very much like 
the poems attributed to Shakespeare and not absolutely un¬ 
like the poems of Robert Herrick. Can you not imagine 
“Gather ye rosebuds while ye may,” in one of Shakespeare’s 
plays ? 

Time casts a shadow over everything. Who wrote the 
Bible? That is a question that is puzzling, and becomes 
more and more puzzling each year. Did it come from the 
pen of a monk or hermit, or was it made up from the col¬ 
lected writings of a number of men? Three thousand years 
from now the inhabitants of this planet will probably be 
arguing and writing symposiums upon such questions as 
“Was Woodrow Wilson a President of the United States 
or a King of England?” or “Was Tolstoy a native of France 
or of Italy ?” 


THE WANDERER 
PETER I. BRADY. 

Doubtless there have been many who could never rest 
satisfied with the story of William Shakespeare nor attain 
any clear solution that the spontaneous genius of a born poet, 
without the aid of much learning, should come to see deeper 
into all the mysteries of God, nature and man, and write 
better about the universal world, than the most accomplished 
scholars, critics and philosophers, and be himself still un¬ 
aware that he had done anything remarkable or wholly 
indifferent to fame. 

About 60 years ago an article appeared in an American 
magazine (afterwards known to have been written by 
Delia Bacon) in which some considerations were set forth 
with much ability, why William Shakespeare could not 
have written the plays which have been attributed to him; 
and the opinion was distinctly intimated that Lord Bacon 
was the real author of them; but no proofs were adduced. 
Consequently, the truth of her theory became unsatisfactory 
to the critical world and was rejected by critics as unau- 
thentic. Also contemporaneous evidence is a strong evi¬ 
dence against her theory, and lastly internal evidence, on 
which we solely rest for the authenticity of most of his 
work. 

Certainly if Shakespeare is to be put on trial for his 
name and reputation he has a right to be confronted with 
the proofs in the high court of criticism and his jury will 
require the best and most ample evidence to be produced 
before they will agree to disrobe him of all his honors. 
Francis Bacon had a low reputation as a play writer, but 
desired to raise himself in the profession of the law, and 
was ambitious for a high place in the State. His desire 
that his reputation in after times among his contemporaries 
should rest upon his acknowledged writings, and his phil¬ 
osophical works in particular, as of greater dignity and 
better becoming his station and the honors he sought to 

114 


THE WANDERER 

attain—these and many other reasons of a philosophical 
and critical nature, are of themselves a sufficient explana¬ 
tion of his wish to cover this authorship. 

We have good circumstantial evidence that, had his 
life been spared him a few years longer, he would have 
given us a complete edition of his works and there is not 
a shadow of evidence to the contrary. Possibly our un¬ 
willingness to give credit for his works, has its source 
in our not being convinced that his dramatic school is so 
different than what is termed classical. 

To play the critic on so grand an author is a dangerous 
office. In attempting to call attention to a fancied defect 
in him, you might expose your own want of knowledge. 
My safeguard, which affords me unalloyed pleasure, is 
admiration. 

HOW DID NOAH GET THE ANI¬ 
MALS INTO THE ARK? 

“The animals went in two by two, 

The elephant and the kangaroo. 9 * 

—An old couplet. 

) 

REV. J. C. AUSTIN, Ebenezer Baptist Church, Pittsburg. 

T HE question demands the establishing of two facts: 

The first is the possibility of Noah gathering the 
animals from the wilds, and the other is the capacity of the 
ark to contain the menagerie. 

This great event, which indelibly impressed itself upon 
the mind of the primeval world, is such a miraculous catas¬ 
trophe that man without faith in the Bible as a book divinely 
inspired and without error cannot fully accept the story 
of the deluge. 

In the acceptance of the story we readily see that the 
US 


THE WANDERER 

period was an abnormal one in the world’s history. With 
man, “Every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was 
only evil continually.” With God, “It repented Him, that 
He had made man on the earth, and it grieved Him at His 
heart.” This expression is an emphatic declaration of 
the abnormal condition in all creation, and in that period 
of strange happenings the creatures of earth were visited 
in a supernatural way by some presentiment of coming 
events—like rats running from a mine just before the ex¬ 
plosion takes place. 

So the animals, represented by a parental remnant of 
each kind, rushed through the wilds, singled out Noah 
by some inscrutable instinct and surrendered to his keep¬ 
ing. It is hardly evident, though possible, that Noah gath¬ 
ered the animals from the wilds, but rather that their 
Creator, who directs them to seek shelter from storm, di¬ 
rected their course to the ark. 

The capacity of the ark to receive the great menagerie 
is readily accepted on these grounds: Sacred history speaks 
of the world in the light of man’s habitation, and at this 
early period of man’s history he did not inhabit outside 
of the plains of the Euphrates and Tigris; thus the flood 
could have covered but a small territory in destroying the 
world inhabited by man, and in this limited territory animals 
were not numerous, any more than men, and neither were 
their kinds so diversified. 

WALTER F. HAMLEY. 

According to the Bible the ark was about 450 feet long, 
75 feet wide, and 45 feet high; but to have accommodated 
a male and a female of all living species of animals with 
food and water to last them for 40 days would have re¬ 
quired a structure several miles in length, miles in breadth, 
and of goodly height. A century ago, your question would 
have been hotly debated. To-day, every informed person 

116 


THE WANDERER 

knows that the whole story of Noah, the ark and the flood 
is merely myth. 

In Doane’s “Bible Myths and Their Parallels in Other 
Religions/’ in the “Encyclopedia Biblica,” and in Sir J. G. 
Frazer’s monumental work on “Folklore in the Old Testa¬ 
ment,” published in 1918, may be read flood myths gathered 
from practically every corner of the globe. 

The Biblical myth was borrowed by the Jews from the 
Babylonians. The original, inscribed on clay tablets, may 
be seen to-day in the British Museum. It is worthy of 
note, too, that there are two flood stories woven together 
in Genesis. The second verse of the seventh chapter says 
Noah was commanded to take into the ark seven males 
and seven females of all clean beasts. In the fifth verse we 
are informed that Noah did as he was told. But in the 
eighth and ninth verses it is stated that of clean beasts 
there went into the ark only two and two—a male and a 
female. 

Nothing of the sort ever happened. Neither Noah nor 
any other man ever lived to be 950 years old. No universal 
flood ever overwhelmed the world. The civilizations of 
India, Egypt, Babylonia, China, continued without interrup¬ 
tion through the period when the flood is alleged to have 
been upon earth. The whole story is a pious myth. 

LULU C. WALLMAN. 

There is no question that Noah had little trouble in 
getting all the animals into the ark. When God ordered 
the ark made he knew exactly what he was talking about 
and what dimensions the boat should be made, so it was 
an easy matter for Noah to march the animals in, where 
they took their places without murmur or fuss. 

There are many people in this day of doubt and sin 
who are always bringing up questions about the Bible, a 
book that should be taken as it is written. In the days 

117. 


THE WANDERER 

of the Bible many things took place which may seem hard 
to understand now, but ages change and if you had told 
Noah about electricity and airplanes he would have been 
just as incredulous and unbelieving about them as some 
of our present-day people are about his ark. 

I believe the ark was built in a number of floors, and 
I do not believe the animals were packed in on top of each 
other. As to the one window that the ark critics lay so 
much stress upon, I think it was all that was necessary, 
for the climate was probably much colder, and then it is 
always colder and more airy upon water than upon land. 

Another thing I believe is that there were not nearly so 
many species of animals in the days of the ark as we 
have now, just as we have more people and more kinds 
of people on the earth now than we did then. And then 
it may have been that the species are bigger now, for scien¬ 
tists claim that man was smaller then than now, and this 
may have been the case with the beasts and birds. 

To me the story of Noah and the ark is a beautiful 
story, true and instructive and should be believed by all. 

GEORGE MACDONALD, Editor, The Truth Seeker . 

The story of Noah and the ark is a myth borrowed from 
the Chaldeans. It shows marks of contradictions. In 
Genesis we are told God commanded Noah to take with him 
into the ark “two” of every sort of living creature, but 
when the ark was finished the order was to take “seven” of 
every clean beast, but “two” of the unclean. Noah finally 
obeyed the first command, showing plainly that two differ¬ 
ent writers—the Jehovistic and the Elohistic—had a hand 
in the compilation. 

Egypt, from which country the Jews came, knew noth¬ 
ing about the deluge. The Pharaoh, Khoutou-Cheop, was 
building his pyramid when the whole world was under 
water, according to the Hebrew story. The ark was 450 

Xi8 


THE WANDERER 


feet long, 75 feet wide and 45 feet high, with one window 
and one door—a vessel utterly inadequate to accommodate 
a tenth part of the earth’s creatures, not to mention the 
great quantity of food required for their sustenance. Noah 
is relieved from all responsibility in the matter of collect¬ 
ing the animals and food with which to feed them, since 
the whole narrative is only a fairy tale. 

F. H. ROBINSON, J. B. S. A. 

The ark was 300 x 50 x 30 cubits. Taking the sacred 
cubit of about 25 inches as a basis we have 625 x 104 x 
63^2 feet for its dimensions—comparing favorably with 
our largest modem vessels. There were three main decks, 
but no space was lost for machinery or for propulsive fuel, 
for the ark was simply an immense covered barge, doubtless 
with essentially flat bottom, and almost, if not quite, square 
ends. These dimensions would give us a little more than 
3,300,000 cubic feet capacity. 

Now we are told that something like 30,000 varieties of 
animal life inhabit Brazil. This vast country is very pro¬ 
lific in animal life; but let us take twice that number as 
being probably ample to cover all forms necessary to be 
protected in the ark. Some of these animals and some 
of the birds are very small; few were doubtless large, but 
the ten cubic feet would seem a sufficient space for an 
average. So we have 60,000 x 10—600,000 cubic feet, of 
the 3,300,000 available, leaving 2,700,000 cubic feet, or four 
times over the space necessary for the animals for the 
storage of food—and still having 300,000 cubic feet for 
Noah, his family, their effects and comforts. 

REV. ARTHUR L. HAIL. 

I have been trying to find an answer to the question, 
“How did Noah manage to get all the animals into the 

119 


THE WANDERER 


ark?” The authorities are silent, even the Bible taking 
it for granted that our faith will accept the statement with¬ 
out question, that he did get them all into the ark. How¬ 
ever, two theories present themselves to me, and though 
they are not valuable, perhaps, I give them: 

1. In the days of Noah, it may be that the animals were 
not so numerous as at present. Possibly the species and the 
sub-species were not yet developed, so that there was only 
the “parent form” to provide space for in the ark. 

2 . In the days of Noah, possibly the animals were not 
nearly as large as they are now, and so did not take up 
nearly so much room. For example, the elephant might 
have been only the size of a sheep; the horse the size of 
a small dog; the dog the size of a rat; the rat the size 
of a flea; the flea the size of an amoeba, etc. I trust this 
will let light in upon this dark question. 


IS THERE A BIG IDEA BEHIND 
THE LITTLE THEATERS? 


“Thus / knew that pups are like dogs , and kids like 
goats; so / used to compare the great things with the 
small” 


—Virgil. 


ROLAND HOLT, Director of the New York Drama 
League and Oratorio Society of New York and Vice- 
President of Henry Holt & Co., Publishers. 



‘HERE are many big ideas behind the Little Theater. 


A i. It is the only way some communities can get any 
plays—by giving them themselves. In the simplest form of 
Little Theater no one, not even the scene-painter, is paid, 
and performances can be given in a large hall or private 
house. 


120 


THE WANDERER 


2. It can give plays to from 600 to 2,100 people that see 
the three to seven performances of each production, gen¬ 
erally of a much finer quality than those that could appeal 
to the 100,000 (100 performances to 1,000 people each) 
that Broadway managers admit are necessary to make their 
productions pay. 

3. For the same reason Little Theaters can give a hear¬ 
ing to promising authors, who could never get one on 
Broadway, but are welcome after the Little Theater has 
taken the risk. 

4. They give opportunity to promising amateurs and to 
their audiences to spend the time in the company of master¬ 
pieces that otherwise they would waste on cards and other 
mere kill-time occupations. 

5. They make splendid “living memorials” for our hero 
dead, who themselves played their parts so nobly in the 
world’s greatest tragedy. 

These are but five of many reasons for the Little The¬ 
aters. 

CHARLES M. BREGG, Dramatic Critic, 
Pittsburgh Gazette Times. 

The idea behind the Little Theater movement of recent 
years is two fold: Dissatisfaction with the obvious shop 
keeping method of many producing managers, seen in the 
disrespect for the drama, its too hasty and ignorant pro¬ 
duction and the growth of the forms of musical comedy 
that exploits in shows, young women and grotesque music 
in lieu of intelligent entertainment. 

In the second place the drama and its vital appeal offer 
an inviting field for experimentation on the part of those 
really endowed with artistic leanings. It is the most demo¬ 
cratic of all arts, and of apparently easy conquest. Also 
it is a fine refuge for the restless ambitions of the social 
dilettante, who finds the drama and the theater excellent 

121 


THE WANDERER 

and popular playthings in the absence of anything better. 

Hence the Little Theater idea reform that is sincere and 
worthy and recreation that is fit chiefly for those who are 
sufferers from ennui. 

CHARLES DEY. 

Were the appreciation in front of the Little Theater as 
big as the idea behind it, we would have the Ideal Theater 
—is that big enough? I’m afraid not, since ideals receive 
scant consideration in our world of commercialism, which 
is the prime cause of the failure and dearth of such theaters. 
Oh yes, there are other causes, also, usually selfish or 
personal ones—little things in little people, and not to be 
confused with the true meaning of the term Little Theater. 

Its purpose is to allow freedom of expression to both 
actor and playwright, unhampered by mercenary motives. 
To encourage art for art’s sake by holding the mirror up to 
nature and not up to the box office. The successful drama¬ 
tist of to-day must build with the dirge of the dollar con¬ 
tinually ringing in his ear. Many of the best inspirations 
conceived by those same dramatists cannot be given us 
because we would not pay to see them. We have so little 
appreciation for the art of the theater that the theater 
striving for that art is appropriately referred to as the 
“Little” Theater. 

We go to the theater to be amused, flattered if you like, 
its art will not do that for us. Then hang that art in some 
secluded spot, some Little Theater and cater to us—we 
pay the bills, and in our sight the theater is worthy of no 
higher place in society than to entertain us. 

What do we know of its art? We have seen so little 
of it, but we do know when we are having a good time. 
And that we will have even if it is necessary to prostitute 
everything in the world. So why should the art of the 
theater escape when life is filled with harlotry? Who 

122 


THE WANDERER 


would go to a theater to be instructed, educated? We 
have schools for that, mostly dull, prosaic, and uninter¬ 
esting places, like Little Theaters, and we attend one as 
willingly as the other. 

It is no fun to be made to see, feel, and think, of life's 
problems unless they are sugar-coated by a happy ending. 
We are afraid to look at the naked truth of human fail¬ 
ings, afraid to inquire too deeply into their cause and 
effect, so we segregate the undesirable, shut the door of 
our lives against reality, and all of us become, merely 
players, toying with life's problems only so long as they 
amuse or pay. 

Is there a big idea behind the Little Theaters? How 
many of them are on Broadway? 

GUSTAV BLUM, Director East-West Players, New York. 

The Little Theater is the spontaneous outgrowth of the 
commercial playhouse. The latter performs a distinct func¬ 
tion in America; it provides the masses with recreation, 
amusement, entertainment. The former also affords en¬ 
tertainment, but by more catholic means. 

The big idea behind the Little Theater is that here one 
enjoys that cleansing exhilaration of the spirit which come 
only from an appreciation of the finer things in the theater. 

The Little Theater is an institution of freedom and 
experimentation. The commercial playhouse must neces¬ 
sarily conform to conventional standards that bind and 
limit it. The Little Theater blazes new paths, offers new 
standards, invites new methods., 

The big idea behind the Little Theater is that America's 
artistic salvation, speaking dramatically, is in its keeping. 
The Little Theater is an art theater. By presenting the 
dramatic classics of all nations, it becomes a clearing house 
for the greatest achievement in the theater which eventually 
must raise the standard of American drama. 

123 


THE WANDERER 


But not only in the matter of dramatic writing is the 
Little Theater an experimental laboratory. The Little 
Theater is responsible for a remarkable advance in stage¬ 
craft. So much so, that even the commercial theater has 
been quick to borrow the new stagecraft of Urban, Jones, 
Peters and Wenger. The Little Theater has broken down 
the realistic limitations of the scenic artist and has en¬ 
couraged him to turn from photographic externals to 
the inner spirit of the play for full expression. 

Altogether, the big idea behind the Little Theater is 
growth—than which there is no bigger! 

HELEN A. F. PENNIMAN. 

“Is there a big idea behind the Little Theater movement ?” 
should not be difficult to answer categorically; yes or no. 
The reply of its votaries will be, of course, yes—but which 
of the varied influences behind the movement constitutes 
the one dominant idea inspiring the movement as a whole? 
There are a number of big ideas propelling the movement, 
and the answers of the various Little Theater groups must 
differ considerably, according to which of these ideas their 
individual tendencies incline them to stress and to develop. 

Probably the greatest unity of sentiment will be found 
in the idea of revolt—revolt against the complexities, per¬ 
plexities and antiquities of the commercial theater, its un¬ 
necessary realism and elaboration, its usual lack of imagi¬ 
nation, or stimulation, and almost prohibitive price. 

Granted that so long as the dollar sign, and not beauty, 
remains the standard of value, these ornate and unin¬ 
spired productions meet a demand. Granted that so long 
as such enormous expenditure is necessary, a commercial 
manager dare not risk large sums on the added uncer¬ 
tainties of apparently undesired experiments. 

But is it assuming too much to hope that the Little 
Theater may demonstrate the possibility of beauty in sim- 

124 


THE WANDERER 


plicity, of piquant charm in suggestion, and the stimulat¬ 
ing of imagination? That would be the realest criticism— 
the constructive kind. 

Among certain Little Theater exponents there is a tend¬ 
ency to feel that their greatest success consists in the 
nearest possible approximation to a technically perfect 
and realistic production on the “professional” (or com¬ 
mercial) stage. Excellent and satisfactory, from certain 
angles, as are such imitative performances, nothing could 
be further from the basic Little Theater ideal. 

THEODORE VIEHMAN, Director, Guild Players of 
Pittsburg. 

Americans like to deal with big things. Our own George 
Cohan epitomized this feeling in a farce a number of years 
ago with the still popular slang question, “What’s the big 
idea ?” And that question is also my text. 

If your idea of something big in the theater begins 
with a show of a dozen or more scenes, with some clever 
vaudeville people, a few catchy songs of the week or two 
and a lot of girls, the Little Theater is not for you. 
Further, if your idea of something big consists of a realis¬ 
tically set melodrama, cheaply sentimental and reeking with 
sex; or a bathroom farce, silkily risque and luxuriously 
improper, then keep your check-book closed and do not 
subscribe for the Guild Players’ season, no matter if it 
does cost only $6. 

But if you have a bigger longing to see some plays, one 
act and longer, which now make up a large part of the 
good literature of the world, see some Little Theater pro¬ 
ductions. 

The Theater Guild of New York City in six months has 
given the public some of the finest acted, loveliest set and 
withal most popular plays the metropolis has seen in many 
moons. Ervine’s “John Ferguson” and Masefield’s “The 

125 


THE WANDERER 


Faithful” are instances in point. That group must have 
a big idea hidden away behind their proscenium. 

The Washington Square Players flourished for several 
seasons till the best of them could no longer resist the 
tempting salaries offered by commercial producers. And 
their best success came to them before they moved into a. 
big theater. 

JAMES GREIG BONAR. 

The idea, and I believe it is big, behind the Little Theater 
is the creation of a national drama. Britain and the Con¬ 
tinental countries have theirs. We have none. Like every 
Nation in its youth, we have been satisfied to borrow our 
arts. Witness Rome, as one instance, and her adaptations 
of everything Greek. 

Our present lack of conspicuous writers of the drama 
is recognized to such extent that an enterprising Briton has 
taken our greatest national figure, put him into a play 
and has sent the play over to us. The development of any 
art has its economic phase. In other branches of literature, 
and in the graphic arts, architecture and music, the financial 
risk involved in marketing is negligible compared with play 
production; there the risk is big. The Little Theater les¬ 
sens this risk, and, in so doing, minimizes the most serious 
obstacle to development. 

With proper encouragement on the part of theatergoers 
the Little Theater will more quickly bring to pass the time 
when we may enjoy good plays “Made in America.” 


120 


THE WANDERER 


SHOULD A WOMAN HAVE THE 
RIGHT TO PROPOSE? 

“But / love you, sir: 

And when a woman says she loves a man , 

The man must hear her , though he love her not ” 
Elizabeth B. Browning in “Aurora Leigh.” 

FAY TEMPLETON PATTERSON 

I REALLY cannot take the question seriously, dear 
Wanderer, although it is my opinion a woman should 
have every and all rights, but whether she should take ad¬ 
vantage of them is quite a different matter, but that is 
not the question, is it? If we little fluttering moths (Pm 
smiling, ladies) feel disposed to assume the role of the 
flame, and let the other fellow do the fluttering for a change, 
and to vary the monotony, why not? 

I can’t believe the idea will appeal \ery strongly, al¬ 
though circumstances alter cases, just as different cases 
must necessarily alter opinions, although to be quite frank, 
were I to see my one best ice cream soda check slipping 
away, silent and untamed, more than likely I’d be tempted 
to take a strangle hold and say, “Darling, let me be yours— 
or “Thank you, sweetie, for allowing me to allow you 
to become my other half,” for no sensible woman would 
feel like saying “better” half under these conditions, I 
feel sure. 

You know, ladies, I believe we all like a little of the cave¬ 
man stuff, and I am strongly in favor of letting a man play 
the man’s part and do his own proposing. Still, if he is coy, 
and you want him badly enough, propose by all means 
—the right is unquestionably yours. But I foresee trouble 
ahead, and suggest that you stop, think and hesitate before 
using it, because if we insist upon usurping too many of 

127 


THE WANDERER 

man’s prerogatives, wouldn’t he be perfectly within his 
rights were he to ask us to pay the rent while he washed 
the baby’s milk bottles ? 

They tell me it is being done. Even “A frog he would 
a’ wooing go,” and so will any man if he loves and wants 
you. Let him keep his little right to woo you, ladies, for 
when you stop to consider—we haven’t left him so very 
many, have we? 

SOPHIE IRENE LOEB, New York World. 

As to your question “Should a woman have the right 
to propose?” would suggest that you issue a referendum. 
No few of us should have the right to decide such a 
weighty matter. 

) 

MARGUERITE MOOERS MARSHALL, New York 
World. 

Woman’s right to propose—of course she has the right 
if she chooses to exercise it—should remain a theory and 
not a condition (i) because, unless she is and will con¬ 
tinue to be, economically independent, asking a man to 
marry her is romantic pan-handling; (2) because, in the 
zero hour of matrimony that comes to us all, when she 
fires the famous rhetorical question, “WHY did I ever 
marry you?” her husband ought not to be equipped with 
the perfectly pulverizing retort, “Because you asked me and 
I didn’t say W”; (3) because the modern woman is 
too busy to waste her time on a chore like proposing, when 
it is so easy to “let George do it.” 

FLORENCE DAVIES, Magazine Editor, the Detroit 
Journal. 

“Should a woman have the right to propose?” “Should” 
she have it, you ask. Well, I’d like to know how on 

128 


THE WANDERER 


earth any one is going to prove that she hasn't got it 
right now. Why on earth hasn’t she? Hasn’t she every 
other right and privilege that would imply that one ? Doesn’t 
she—but hold on, far be it from me to tip her off that 
she has such a right. That’s just it, I’m only afraid that 
she’ll find it out. For if once it dawns on women that 
they have the right to propose, all might start doing it. 
And when they start, we’ll all have to keep up—and 
wouldn’t it be perfectly awful? 

My goodness, gracious, aren’t you going to leave us one 
little illusion about ourselves? Just because modern women 
actually edit departments in newspapers and sell bonds, 
and carry latch keys and pay income taxes and buy stocks, 
aren’t you going to let us kid ourselves into believing that 
at heart we really do like tea roses and old china and be¬ 
long in crisp muslins, and that we’re really sweetly femi¬ 
nine and clinging and dependent? Now, what luminous¬ 
eyed creature who has poppies in her garden and who 
serves tea in the afternoon (the way we all think we will 
some day) wants to propose or needs to? 

And, finally, can you think of anything more useless, 
more unnecessary, more superfluous, more utterly futile, 
than to give woman the right to propose? Women may 
need the vote, they may need mothers’ pensions and pro¬ 
tective laws in industry, they may need more wages or less 
work or equal pay, or more sense of humor, or a chance 
to serve on juries, but the one thing on earth they don’t 
need is the right to propose. It’s so much easier, and so 
much less trouble and incurs so much less responsibility, 
to select the man and make him do it. 

LAURA JEAN LIBBY. 

Do matrimonial dodgers fear leap year? 

SHE: 

Oh, this is leap year, dear Robin, 

When woman may seek a mate— 

129 


THE WANDERER 


Propose to the man she would marry, 

Be he ever so gay or sedate. 

HE: 

Don’t try it, sweet girl; be judicious; 

’Tis modesty wins a man’s heart. 

If you have been gracious and kindly, 

That’s all that’s within your part. 

—L. J. L. 

The Wanderer asks me to tell honestly, if a nice miss,, 
who really liked a shy young man, ought to take advantage 
of leap year to propose that they get married. Otherwise 
the miss might wait years and years—perhaps forever. 

I do not see that leap year has anything to do with it. 
Aren’t the girls always proposing—each one in her own 
adroit, cute little way? At the time of introduction—each 
one in her own way put the query to him: Are you heart- 
whole and fancy free, therefore in the love-market? 

If they consider they have received sufficient encour¬ 
agement, do they not continue to press their cause by invit¬ 
ing him to call again, and yet again? With father battling 
up-stairs about the coal bill, and mother troubled over the 
gas and the fact that she is sitting out her best clothes, 
the girl’s silent wooing is not nearly such smooth sailing as 
the man imagines. If he has availed himself of her hospi¬ 
tality all these long cold evenings of the winter, is he such, 
a dolt as to fancy she is doing all this for the fun of it ? Not 
he! No man is so thick-headed not to be aware that she 
has been challenging him to think mighty seriously of 
matrimony. Of how companionable and lovable she is, 
and what a dear and charming wife she would make in 
a cozy home of their own. She has been proposing silently, 
by suggestion. That’s the woman’s way of doing it. Al¬ 
ways will be. Exemplifying the truth of “actions speak 
louder than words.” 


130 


THE WANDERER 

As for a man being too shy to propose marriage—that's 
all nonsense, girls. A spinster might tell her niece such 
was the case and in good faith join in with her in worry¬ 
ing over it. A widow would tell her daughter that line of 
talk was all moonshine. 

To sum up, if, after proper attention a man's heart ap¬ 
pears invulnerable—let him alone. The hard, cold fact 
probably is he is in love with someone else, who for some 
reason or other is beyond his reach. Or he may know he is 
barely able to support himself, and the luxury of a wife 
is not for him, therefore, he must dodge matrimony. Shy¬ 
ness is an ample cloak. He is not to be cajoled, threatened, 
or bantered into it. Leap year has no terrors for him. 

Taking it all in all, women should be satisfied to keep 
on in the dainty, delicate, feminine way which they have 
always made it subtly manifest that “Miss Barkis would be 
willin'" arvd let it go at that. 

william j. McLaughlin. 

Yes, they certainly should. Yet it seems to me women 
have usurped this privilege, or it may be more proper to 
say desire, long before this. In fact, from my own experi¬ 
ence, let me say the marriage proposal is more popular 
with women than with men. They propose, approve, veto, 
uphold and direct everything after the marriage—why not 
let them start right from the beginning? The pleasure of 
proposing is theirs, always has been, and from the present 
outlook, will continue to be the growing fad in the future. 

This is leap yeai True enough, and little difference 
does it make. Upon rapid calculation, I think I had six 
or seven proposals ir 1919. Not one of those who made 
them met my fancy as to her beauty, so I am still a wan¬ 
dering, hopeful bachelor, looking toward better success in 
leap year. 

Of course, I think there are a few men in this wide 
I3i 


THE WANDERER 


world, who, if they waited until they had the “proposition” 
laid before them by one of the other sex, would perhaps 
remain single. And further, I think the same of a few 
women in this respect, for they would be waiting, hoping 
and longing until—oh, well, they have my sympathy. 


IS IT POSSIBLE FOR THE DEAD 
TO MATERIALIZE? 

The closing lines of Walt Whitman’s “Leaves of 
Grass’* run thus: “Remember my words —/ love you 
—I depart from materials, 1 am as one disembodied, 
triumphant, dead.” 

SIR ARTHUR CONAN DOYLE. 

D O I believe it possible for the dead to materialize to 
the living? I do not believe it to be true, I know 
it to be true. 

W. T. STEAD, through Charles A. Robb, medium by 
automatic spirit writing. 

It is possible for the so-called dead to materialize. It all 
depends on conditions and medium. If the medium has 
the proper magnetism and surroundings it can be done. 
You know, my friends, there are certain chemicals in the 
air, and certain chemicals in the human body. Some have 
more electricity, so some people have more iron, some 
more of other chemicals. Taking all together, the spirit 
guides are able to build up a body which they make as 
near like the body of the earth plane as they can make it. 
Sometimes it may not be just like the person in every way, 
but that is no fault of the spirit who is trying to manifest, 
but the fault of the people themselves, for they very often 

132 


THE WANDERER 


go to see this materialization in a scoffing and jeering man¬ 
ner, and all for curiosity, and then they wonder why their 
friends did not show themselves more plainly. I often 
wonder why they get anything at all. It is only the good 
Lord trying to convince man of a large and better world. 

Tell your friend, materialization is possible. We are not 
all privileged to know all about this wonderful work. We 
only know there are times and conditions, when right, we 
can manifest in more ways than one. Did not the Master 
materialize for his disciples ? Why, then, would he not al¬ 
low the spirit friends to manifest to their loved ones? 
Would it not be a great comfort and consolation to many 
a poor, sorrowing mother, wife or sister, in fact all hu¬ 
manity, to know their loved ones were well and happy and 
in a better, brighter world, and still soaring onward and 
upward and waiting for the loved ones to come and join 
them in their beautiful world? I hope I have made this 
a little plainer to humanity. Goodnight. 

HOUDINI. 

In 30 years of serious study of spiritualism I have never 
received proof that the dead can in any way communicate 
with the living. I have attended seances of the greatest 
mediums during that period and have never seen “demon¬ 
strations” which I was not able myself to reproduce. I will 
not say there is not a survival after death, but that up to 
this time such survival has never been proved to me. 

HARVEY O’HIGGINS. 

Is it possible for the dead to materialize to the living? 
I do not know, and do not believe anybody knows. The' 
whole subject has been complicated by studies of the sub¬ 
conscious mind made within the past few years. That 
subconscious mind, it would seem, has an almost unlimited 

133 


THE WANDERER 

power to impose on the conscious mind. It can make us 
see and hear and feel many things that do not exist ex¬ 
cept as hallucinated wishes—just as it can prevent the 
soldier with “shell-shock” from consciously hearing or 
seeing anything at all, when there is nothing whatever 
wrong with his actual sight or hearing. Until these inter¬ 
ferences of the subconscious mind are fully understood and 
guarded against in the evidences of “materialization, I do 
not believe the question can be answered. 

JAMES L. GRIMES. 

I firmly believe in an unseen world of spirit people, living 
beyond us of this world, and who are able under certain 
conditions to manifest their existence to us. 

Persons who have “died” have communicated to living 
persons. The act according to collected data is one of 
immense difficulty. Certain individuals are able to act as 
interpreters in these cases. They are called mediums. A 
medium is nothing more than a transformer. If electricity 
is sent from its source in a certain form to a desired point, 
no result occurs. Therefore, a medium must be employed 
in between the source and objective. This is a transformer, 
which catches the force and changes it to suit the require¬ 
ments beyond it. 

There is no doubt that many messages are sent to us from 
our dear departed ones. Numerous persons at times have 
received strange broken impressions during sleep and even 
when awake. These peculiar ideas and mental pictures 
are really attempts of some one trying to reach you from 
the spirit world. 

Every now and then a person is discovered of remarkable 
structure of mind able to receive these attempted com¬ 
munications and to deliver them to the interested ones. The 
mind of the medium is thus a receiving station and possesses 
the supersensitive requirements of being able to tune itself 

134 


THE WANDERER 


to a superior tone, then to transform this tone to one able 
to reach our senses. 

DUDLEY DORN, E. V. 

Recent experiments prove that a current, something like 
electricity, flows from the tips of the fingers, showing that 
the real life interpenetrates the physical vehicle extending 
beyond it and that its leaving the physical is the so-called 
death. 

That this real body can, by lowering its vibration, be¬ 
come visible to one whose vibration has been raised, in 
equal ratio, is no less a fact than a birdman’s ability to 
communicate with those above which he flies, by wireless. 

It is only within the last few years that the ultra-violet 
ray has been caught by the physical eye. Why? The ray 
was there although the vibrations were too high for the 
eye to record it; proving that on the whole present ability 
to visualize catches a higher vibration than it did in the 
nineteenth century. 

Given a proper time, place, and attention to the thing 
desired there is no reasons why by changing the vibration 
those who have left the physical body may not materialize 
so as to be seen by those whose vibration has been acceler¬ 
ated a few octaves to meet the lowered vibration of the 
other. 

I have proved this to be a fact. Others also have done 
the same, especially students of esoteric vibration. 

RALPH ADAMS CRAM. 

It is not so much whether “materialization” is possible, 
as it is whether any direct, conscious commerce is pos¬ 
sible between the living and the dead. If no, then “mate¬ 
rialization” takes care of itself; if yes, then this is a detail 
of slight importance; the fact of communication is the 
essential thing. 


135 


THE WANDERER 

I am fully persuaded that in its absolute sense communi¬ 
cation between the living and the dead is impossible; that 
“spiritualism” is a delusion, and that the agency respon¬ 
sible for psychic messages, manifestations and phenomena is 
not the essential personality, the ego, of the dead. This 
does not mean that I deny the perfect authenticity of a 
great mass of psychical phenomena. 

All communications may be divided into two classes: (a) 
accomplished events, (b) future happenings. The source 
of the first is probably a persisting element of a definite per¬ 
sonality, but not that personality in essence; the source of 
the second is that category of created beings known in the 
Christian religion as angels. 

In my opinion human personality is multiple; there is 
spirit and there is matter (soul and body) but there is also 
a third element, “that part which remembereth,” and there 
may be others as well. Death dissolves the unity in mul¬ 
tiplicity; the immortal soul goes on to its own (and to us un¬ 
known) place; the body, in time, is resolved into its ele¬ 
ments ; “that part which remembereth clingeth like memory 
to what it seeth yet.” 

All earthly experience has two results: (a) the result, 
eternally incorporated with the soul; (b) the material rec¬ 
ord, in itself valueless and destined to ultimate dissolution 
and recombination. Life (the union of matter and spirit) 
builds up a sort of shell of material experience (memory, 
we call it) just as it builds up the physical body. Death 
frees the soul with its added wealth of the essence of ex¬ 
perience, leaving the body and the “carnal soul” (the mem¬ 
ory record) to their ultimate destiny of dissolution and 
recombination. 

I think the present physical fever is closely allied, and 
that the efforts now being made by unearthly forces to take 
possession of men and control their actions, is an essential 
part of a greater Armageddon than was the late war. In¬ 
creasingly Protestants of every denomination are slipping 

136 


THE WANDERER 


insensibly into explicit psychism and the time may not 
be far off when the great contest will be joined; on the one 
hand a great mass of former Protestants, who have sur¬ 
rendered to spiritism in one form or another, and under 
the direct control of destructive rather than constructive 
psychic forces, and on the other—the Catholic Church. 


WILL WE KNOW EACH OTHER IN 
HEAVEN? 

“When the roll is called up yonder—Vll be there, 9 * 

—Old Hymn. 

REV. J. M. STOVER. 

W ILL we know each other in heaven? Yes; why not? 

Why should there be any doubt about it? Here on 
earth we know our friends from outward appearance, and 
personal acquaintance, and hence we can only know them 
in part. We have no spiritual eyes to see into the soul, and 
therefore cannot know them thoroughly. 

But in heaven we know them by the light of God. If 
God knows them, then surely we will know each other, 
“For then we shall know even as we are known/’ I Cor. 
13:12. The rich man in hell even knew Lazarus at sight 
and also Abraham, whom he had never seen on earth. 

G. B. HILL. 

Will we know each other in heaven ? Unquestionably and 
unequivocally—yes. By heaven is meant the realm or 
world of reality, boundless, changeless, everywhere. Heaven 
is within the spiritual consciousness of man. There is no 
place where heaven is not. 


137 


THE WANDERER 


By reality we mean that which is absolutely permanent, 
not subject to change. “The things which are seen are 
temporal, but the things which are not seen are eternal.” 
(II Cor. 14:18.) In thinking of reality it is necessary to 
have a sense of infinity. 

By man, the real man, is meant the perfect, conscious, 
manifestation of God in infinite mind. In man dwells the 
full expression of the highest idea of his Creator. Man 
has perfect spiritual perception and discernment, and recog¬ 
nizes instantly each individual idea of God, that idea being 
the spiritual man. 

Everything about us has its spiritual reality. On account 
‘of the mist of matter we see very imperfectly if we see 
at all. H. L. Rawson and other leading scientists say that 
we do not hear with our ears and see with our eyes; that 
sight and hearing are entirely mental effects. “For now 
we see through a glass darkly, but then face to face; now 
I know in part; but then shall I know even also as I am 
known.” (Cor. 13:12.) We shall always know and see 
each other when mist of matter is lifted. 

CHARLES VISKOCHIL. 

Will we know each other in heaven ? This question sug¬ 
gests others. Is heaven a place or a condition? If it is a 
condition of bliss, and if this life is a probation or prepara¬ 
tion for that condition, then it should conform to those 
things which we have grown to delight in. If we find no 
pleasure in domination of others or in patriotism; if we 
desire no pleasure at the cost of pain to others; if we 
are not proud and yet have self assurance and poise, then 
we shall be in heaven as long as our mortal shells endure 
and will know those around us, who dwell in the same 
state. We will also know those who dwell in ignorance 
and its resultant discord, but such a condition does not mean 
heaven at all to those who believe that heaven is a place 

138 


THE WANDERER 


where only those can enter who have the password of a 
right creed. If these would examine their tenets they 
would find they subscribe to a school of thought that sup¬ 
ports the idea that heaven is a place where only those may 
enter who love their enemies and hate their friends, for 
they assert that their Master said, “Love your enemy,” 
and again, “He that hates not his father and his mother 
and his brethren,” and so forth, “cannot be my disciple.” 

If this is heaven, would it not be better if we meet as 
strangers? I must confess, I do not know if there is a 
heaven after this life. Neither do I believe that any others 
know, and further, with the proportion of hate to love, 
covetousness to benevolence, bigotry to mental hospitality, 
persecution to tolerance, arrogance to helpfulness and fair 
play in this world, I have little hope that any place that 
may be heaven now, will long continue so, when some of 
the people who feel sure of heaven depart from “this 
vale of tears.” 


MRS. ADELAIDE LEWIS. 

It has been the Christian’s hope for ages to meet and 
recognize each other in the other world. What comfort 
we derive from the thought of kindred minds assisting 
us to proclaim the glories of His righteousness and honors 
of His name. Oh! how David strengthens that hope by his 
words at the death of his child, “I shall go to him, but he 
shall not return to me.” The hope takes the form of reality 
by the words of Paul, in his epistle to the Corinthians, 
“face to face now I know in part, but then shall I know 
even as I am known.” 

If that is not conclusive evidence, follow me with Peter, 
James, and John, to the mountain on the occasion of The 
Transfiguration and catch their vision of Moses and Elias. 
Let the doubting Thomas hear the words of Jesus, the great 
authority, “When ye shall see Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, 

139 . 


THE WANDERER 


and all the prophets in the Kingdom of God.” Let’s con¬ 
tinue in faith, believing all things. 

EDWARD H. MARTIN. 

Of course we will know each other above. To say that 
God created us and watched over us with loving care, de¬ 
veloping the wonderful personality of the human soul to 
later obliterate it by robbing it of all its previous develop¬ 
ment and associations would be little short of blasphemy. 
In Beulah Land we must of necessity go on to a higher and 
higher development with our terrestrial experience as the 
foundation—not begin all over again. 

How then can we develop without a memory which in¬ 
cludes a consciousness of all past experiences which of 
course, includes the mental picture of our former friends 
and acquaintances? God did not create us as His toys 
simply to break in a fit of passion, but for infinite develop¬ 
ment becoming greater and finer as time passes. 

JAMES W. PARKER. 

My understanding is that when we arrive within the 
pearly gates and have our corporal frames checked by 
St. Peter and stored away for a transmigration, that we shall 
wander about clad only in our souls. If this is true, we 
must have omniscience. My friend Katie Simmons, whom 
I recognize only by the bunches on her ears, will be cut dead 
by me if I am not vested with supernatural sight. 

It is a terrible thought about my neighbor Herman Gott- 
walt. Herman has recently taken his fourth wife, after 
two deaths and a divorce. I say that Herman will know 
them all, but if they know him, poor old Heinie! 

There are some fellows I know too well on earth to 
want to know them in heaven. Much of my earthly misery 
comes from knowing certain people, and if I can’t get rid 

140 


THE WANDERER 


of them by being good I shall commit some sin, like playing 
pool, and go to Heligoland. 

For instance that Magee woman who visits my wife Jane. 
If that old frump, whose only joy is in waiting around for 
a supper invitation, knows me in heaven, the harp and 
crown are without joy. 

And the lodge brothers who call on me before I get up on 
Sunday morning, I don’t want to know them. Nor do I 
care especially to be appointed by Gabriel on the same com¬ 
mittee as Hank Harner, who wants to stay out until 2 
o’clock every morning. I want to get some sleep in heaven 
in reward for catching the 7:12 train every morning from 
Carnegie. 

They tell us in church, between naps, that there are 
going to be lots of people in heaven. With those we know 
and those we will be introduced to by our great grand¬ 
father and our great grandsons, there will be an awful 
lot of people to speak to on the way down to the baseball 
grounds just outside the third gate of Jerusalem. But I 
guess we will know each other and everybody else, includ¬ 
ing folk from the Salaam Islands and from Jupiter, Sirius 
and the Milky Way. 


SHOULD CHARITY BEGIN AT 
HOME? 

“And now abideth faith , hope , charity , these three; 
but the greatest of these is charity ” — Cor. xiii:13. 

MAUD BALLINGTON BOOTH, Volunteers of America. 

Y ES, I think charity should begin at home, but it should 
not stop there. Many people have their interest aroused 
in far away calls for help because there is a certain glamor 
of romance in missionary fields and distant needs. It is 

UI 


THE WANDERER 

splendid that they should help those in other parts of the 
world, but the sorrow, poverty, sin, and misery right at 
our own door must be dealt with also, even though it 
often presents a very sordid exterior. 

Those who have helped the need among our own poor, 
our own sick, and own own prisoners, will have their 
hearts and sympathies so widened that they will then gladly 
find overwhelming sympathy for those abroad. 

The more one loves, the stronger becomes the capacity 
for loving, and it is the hands that are always busy with 
helpfulness that always find yet more to do. 

DIANA BELAIS, Editor, The Open Door. 

Does charity begin at home? Of course it does. The 
justice, rightness, of what this phrase expresses, has been 
so evident to mankind that it has crystallized down through 
the centuries into the adage which is the subject of this 
symposium. 

The lack of the instinct of conservation and self-preserva¬ 
tion which charity bestowed elsewhere than at home indi¬ 
cates, is fraught with serious disabilities, not alone for the 
objects which should rightfully engage one’s attention, i. e., 
our home objects, but equally for the easy-going individual 
who yields to a lax and thoughtless generosity. 

Nowhere is this more manifest than at present when 
there seems to be a species of insanity obsessing our citizens 
in their reprehensible mania for the giving to foreign coun¬ 
tries and foreign peoples of money sadly needed in our 
own country, and even sometimes sadly needed by them¬ 
selves or others closely associated with them. This whole¬ 
sale denuding of ourselves and our home charities is doing 
a great deal of harm, not the least of which is the weaken¬ 
ing of the spirit of patriotism; of pride and love for our 
own institutions; of care and protection for our own philan¬ 
thropies. 


142 


THE WANDERER 

And this thing of being stripped by rapacious foreigners, 
who hate our great country and pretend to despise its 
citizens, will continue until our people begin to realize, par¬ 
tially, if not fully, that self-preservation lies in following 
faithfully the injunction that charity begins first, last, and 
all the time, at home—and that it is a wicked neglect on 
our part if we allow outside influence to deflect assistance 
from home and country to the outsider of either. 

Yes, indeed, charity begins at home. 

MARGARET SANGER, Editor, Birth Control Review. 

Yes, not only should charity begin at home, but what is 
far more important, responsibility should begin at home. If 
each man and woman would live up to the obligation of 
the highest instincts in their natures there would be little 
need of charity. All of us would be able to give of our¬ 
selves and our substance so freely and unconsciously that 
the thought of dependence or of charity would have but 
small place in the world. 

All modern life makes for social responsibility. We 
can no longer be concerned with our own private interests 
alone. We have learned that our own interests can be se¬ 
cure only in the security of our neighbor’s. It is impossible 
in modern city life to have pure water for your own family’s 
use unless your neighbor is also provided with pure water. 
The same principle applies to milk, other foods, drugs— 
virtually all our necessities. So it is with our health—we 
have associations and public health measures in order that 
all may have the benefit of cures or, better still, of preven¬ 
tive measures. 

The same situation is observed in education. To protect 
our children, our neighbors and society, we must do our 
part in instructing our children and in providing general 
education for them. We must pay special attention to per¬ 
sonal and social hygiene, to such training as will make our 
children’s lives of value to themselves and to society. 

143 


THE WANDERER 


If we allow children to go into a polluted world, our 
work is undone. So, not only charity, but something that 
precedes charity must begin at home. We must first recog¬ 
nize in ourselves our responsibility to the community— 
we must provide for the education of our children, of our 
neighbors, of our fellow citizens. We cannot escape our 
social responsibilities without danger to ourselves. More 
than ever is it true that we do not live to ourselves alone. 

Charity begins at home that it may have the more to 
give. Responsibility begins at home that it may there gather 
strength through the discharge of its first obligations, to 
help in the discharge of the general responsibility 

MRS. HELEN ADAMS MOORE, Morgan Community 
House, Pittsburg. 

Should charity begin at home? Or, in other words, 
should we practice what we preach ? 

The injunction of the Man of Nazareth, the friend of 
the poor and lowly, was: “Ye shall be witnesses unto me 
both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and in Samaria, and to 
the uttermost parts of the earth/’ Man has ever been 
taught that his first responsibility is to the individual who 
needs him nearest at home. 

All agree that bleeding Belgium, hungry Russia, crying 
Armenia and starving Africa should all be helped by the 
labor of our hands and the love of our hearts, but it seems 
also logical that any of these people should not be allowed 
to suffer without an effort on our part to show love to them 
within our own borders. There can truly be no charity that 
does not seek first to alleviate the pain and drive out the 
gloom and injustice that surrounds its own door. 

Charity to be true must always be extended to the burden 
bearer. The American Negro has been one of America’s 
real burden bearers. In many instances an object of pity, 
but pity is not charity. He stands to-day with his hands 
144 


THE WANDERER 

outstretched asking that he might be helped—not that he 
might have to keep but that he might have to give. 

The Negro has proved beyond question his loyalty to 
every principle of Americanism. He loves the flag, because 
it is his. He has a right to demand from it justice and 
fair play, and since the flag is at the foundation of American 
wealth, education, and prosperity, he has the right to ex¬ 
pect his share of support and help that should come to any 
people who are loyal to the principles of any Nation. 

Let not America continue to forget him or remember 
him only with scorn and ridicule, and at last have to face 
the judge of all the earth to answer the question, Where 
is thy Negro brother? For the light that shines farthest 
is the light that shines brightest at home. 

FLORENCE OLIVER. 

Some one has remarked that while charity should begin 
at home, it should not be so exclusive as to refuse to call 
upon the neighbors. However, if charity in this instance 
refers to American control of Asiatic countries, I believe 
we should attend to the problem of setting our own house 
in order before we consider increasing our responsibilities. 

There is only one real form of charity, and that is the 
effort to help others help themselves. The attempt to lift 
a man by main force above his natural level accomplishes 
little; by arousing his ambition he may be induced to climb 
the heights through his own efforts. Too much help and too 
little personal responsibility usually result in ruination in¬ 
stead of salvation. 

In regard to the plan of having Uncle Sam act as nurse¬ 
maid to a dozen or more partially civilized and wholly 
bankrupt countries on the other side of the world, the 
poor fellow has his hands full right now. With the labor 
unions, the “Reds” and the “wets” all clamoring for atten¬ 
tion, he is in the position of the old woman who lived in 
145 


THE WANDERER 

a shoe, and in addition the neighboring children to the 
south persist in throwing stones at irregular intervals, in¬ 
juring the other children and mixing things up generally. 

I have always admired the motive in this: 

Do the work that’s nearest, 

Though it’s dull at whiles. 

Helping, when you meet them, 

Lame dogs over stiles. 

But the injunction to do your own work comes first, 
the helping hand later on. Incidentally, it might be ad¬ 
visable to find out how the dog came to be lame; it is 
just possible he was killing a neighbor’s chickens when the 
owner appeared on the scene. 


WHO IS THE MORE VALUABLE— 
AN IDEALIST OR A PRACTI¬ 
CAL MAN? 

“We build statues of snow and weep to see them melt ” 

—Walter Scott. 

PROF. GEORGE A. COE, Union Theological Seminary, 
New York. 

I F by “practical man” you mean one who works effectively 
for inferior ends, and by “idealist” one who proclaims 
high standards, but keeps out of the dust of common life, 
then I would say that they are about equally valuable to so¬ 
ciety, but that some are more valuable, some less, according 
to the degree in which efficiency moves toward ideals and 
ideals toward efficiency. The most valuable citizen is the 
one who gets the largest number of his fellow citizens to 

146 


THE WANDERER 

co-operate for the control of all our conduct and all our 
resources for high social ideals. 


KENNETH B. ELLIMAN. 

It is fair to assume that the kind of practical man meant 
is the one who considers first tangible, material things; 
whereas, an idealist is one who is guided by ideas. Thus, 
millionaires and manual workers are practical men; poets, 
inventors and reformers are idealists. 

Practical men have always insisted that we live in the 
best possible world, and that any attempt to change it was 
dangerous heresy. Therefore, they have denounced and 
persecuted idealists as “dreamers” and “disturbers of the 
peace.” Witness Galileo, Columbus and William Lloyd 
Garrison. 

Had practical men prevailed, we should still be shivering 
in dark caves, thankful that that dangerous radical, Prome¬ 
theus, had been thwarted in his blasphemous attempt to 
steal fire from heaven (where it belongs) ; afraid to ven¬ 
ture far from home, lest we fall off the edge of the earth; 
always walking safely on the ground, instead of being 
whirled dangerously along in railroad trains, automobiles or 
airships; communicating slowly by word of mouth, instead 
of sending messages over wires, by letters or through the 
ether to people thousands of miles away; afraid of all the 
elements; without books, art, poetry, or moving pictures. 

Do you regret this lost paradise of the practical man? 
Or are you glad the idealists prevailed and “turned the 
world upside-down” with their ideas? Are not idealists 
the only really practical men and women? 

EDWARD KEATING, Manager, Plumb Plan League. 

Give me the practical man with just enough idealism 
to sweeten his character. 


147 


THE WANDERER 

The practical man without idealism is too hard, and the 
idealist who refuses to consider the facts of life is an 
unsafe guide. 

I think there is a happy medium. 

BASIL KING. 

The idealist and the practical man can have no more 
value, one above the other, than a lock can have more 
value than a key. Both are essentials to the same pur¬ 
pose. The idealist makes the balls and the practical man 
throws them. If there were no idealists there would be 
no practical men; if there were no practical men the idealist 
would be useless. 

MAX LASDAY. 

I should say the practical man, every time, although every 
person at some time in his life, has ideals, or fancies of 
what they would like to do, or be, if only they had the 
opportunity. That is just where the difference lies, for the 
practical man has that something in him that enables him 
to put his ideals into practice, and thereby earns success, 
while the idealist goes on dreaming and planning from day 
to day, of what he will do to-morrow, and to-morrow never 
comes. Alas for the idealist! How many millions of them 
go through life with nothing to show for their ideals at 
its close? 

The practical man, even though he may not become fa¬ 
mous, has earned some measure of success, and has the sat¬ 
isfaction of knowing that he has made some use of his life 
and has done something worth while. 

It would therefore seem to me that it is the practical 
man who is more valuable than the idealist. 


148 


THE WANDERER 


WESTERN STARR. 

Your question has a practical significance at this juncture 
in matter of world-wide interest. The chaos that reigns 
in the affairs of men is traceable to a collision between 
practical ideas and the practice of idealists; as though the 
blind had not merely led but driven the blind, after having 
made them blind, into destruction. 

Comparisons are odious and distinctions may be invidious 
—but it appears unwise to permit either type of man to 
have supreme dominion over the destiny of other men. 
Such achievement as our race has made has come from 
fortunate combinations in which the ideal and the practical 
were able to co-operate. To ask to which of these we are 
most in debt is like asking if a child could better get on 
without having had a father or a mother. 

It is noteworthy that the terms idealism, idealist, etc., 
have come to signify the type of mind that concerns itself 
with social conditions, a wide departure from the Kantian, 
Hegellian and Berkleyan connotations. The opposite of 
the idealist, in their day, was the materialist; now, it is 
the practical man. 

The supreme idealists of our history were Jefferson 
and Lincoln. Yet they were the most practical men of 
their times. The impractical idealist is more dangerous 
than the practical man who makes use of him. It is only 
your practical idealist who can protect himself and those 
who trust him from the designs of your unidealistic prac¬ 
tical pragmatist. 


149 


THE WANDERER 


WHAT SHOULD BE THE ATTI¬ 
TUDE OF THE CHURCH IN 
THE PRESENT INDUSTRIAL 
CRISIS? ! 

“By and by, when the world has found out what 
church does the most good , it will know what church to 
believe ” — Gotthold Ephraim Lessing. 

DR. WILL C. CHAPPELL, Pittsburg Baptist Association. 

T HERE can be but one answer to this question. The at¬ 
titude of the church should be that of its founder and 
leader. Its function is that of the prophet, to proclaim the 
law of the Kingdom of God. 

The church is not to be the champion of either employers 
or employes as such, but it should speak clearly and unmis¬ 
takably where human interests are involved in any contro¬ 
versy. It should give the full message of the gospel, pro¬ 
claim the full content of the meaning and application of the 
Kingdom of God. In so doing it must be made apparent 
to all that the Kingdom of God is all-embracing in its inter¬ 
est and purpose, that its law has to do with every relation¬ 
ship in life, that it is concerned with life here and now. 

The law and the spirit of the Kingdom are love, good-will, 
justice, mercy, forgiveness, sympathy and helpfulness. The 
church proclaims this law and this spirit as those for every 
individual everywhere, and not only invites every man to 
live by them, but asserts that by these alone shall a man, a 
community, or a Nation, be judged. As no individual is 
exempt from this standard so is no business, no profession, 
no economic relation, no property. 

The church must condemn in this industrial crisis any¬ 
thing that violates these laws. 

The church should not hesitate to state the law and spirit 

150 


THE WANDERER 


of Christ in comparison with conditions connected with the 
industrial crisis as revealed in the present strikes. 

It follows that the church should condemn the brutality, 
the lack of justice, the suppression of the rights of free 
speech and assemblage, violence, and the campaign of preju¬ 
dice, suspicion and illwill, which are indisputable' facts as to 
the State of Pennsylvania during the past few months. The 
church in so doing is not taking sides, but is simply fulfilling 
its mission. 

KINLEY McMILLAN, Sheraden Presbyterian Church, 
Pittsburg. 

It is my opinion that the church should stand on the plat¬ 
form “Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after right¬ 
eousness—the square deal.” A most insistent and demand¬ 
ing desire to know what is a “square deal” and then to 
insist on its application. 

This means intent investigation and consideration of the 
diverse claims, a conclusion that will not be biased by tradi¬ 
tional customs nor personal inclination—then a carrying 
out of what is right by the wisest methods we can provide. 
These methods ought to be in line with our national methods 
of working as expressed in the Constitution of the United 
States and of the States. 

Strikes, like war, ought not to bp the first nor the middle, 
but the last resort when all else has failed. 

Greed and violence must be discountenanced. The secret 
of it all is to have the ideal that life is a service. The serv¬ 
ice we render must be worth while and the return for such 
service must be amply adequate. If the return for the serv¬ 
ice is first in mind and not the service itself we shall have 
confusion. 

REV. R. C. WYLIE. 

This question can be answered only in the terms of the 
great commission given the church by her Divine Head and 

151 


THE WANDERER 

Lord. That commission requires the unfolding of the 
Scriptures in their present-day applications. There is abun¬ 
dant material in the Bible relating to every aspect of the 
labor problem in all ages and countries. 

First. The church must make a clear distinction between 
the real labor problem and the problem of Bolshevism and 
other forms of anarchy as camouflaged by the labor problem. 
Civil government is a divine institution and derives its au¬ 
thority from God through the people. No combination of 
men, laborers or capitalists, should dare defy that authority. 
It is treason to the State, a crime against the public, and 
defiance of the authority of God. 

Second. Having clarified the atmosphere on this point, 
the church should condemn without fear or favor the unjust 
features of the present industrial order and insist upon the 
application of the moral law and the Golden Rule. This is 
the only way to eliminate the senseless strife between capital 
and labor. 

Third. When both sides to the strife learn these lessons 
they will have no difficulty in getting together and agreeing 
upon some plan whereby they can live together in unity. 
It is not the function of the church to formulate a plan, such 
as a 50-50 division of surplus profits, an equal voice in the 
management, part ownership of the stock, and so forth. 
After the church has done its duty in declaring the gospel 
elements that must be recognized in adjusting the relations 
of capital and labor most of these difficult problems will 
have vanished and the remainder can be easily adjusted by 
the mutual agreement of the parties concerned. 

REV. CHARLES E. LIEBEGOTT. 

The position of the church in the present industrial crisis 
must be that which demands a square deal for capital and 
labor alike. To do this the church must maintain her posi¬ 
tive position as a divine institution for declaring the truth 

152 


THE WANDERER 


and act as an agency for establishing and promoting the 
kingdom of God on earth where the Golden Rule will be the 
ruling policy. 

The church has held up its hands in horror too often when 
it was suggested that a social and industrial cleansing be de¬ 
manded of the men in high and low places. The result to a 
large extent; at least, is the crisis we are going through in 
the industrial world. The church has been ordained of God 
to lead men in the truth, and preaching only half the truth 
has permitted men to drift into the radical and intolerable 
situation of to-day. 

Eut this is where the church has made her mistake and 
has not comprehended the whole vision of Christ nor fol¬ 
lowed the second part of the great commission. 

Industrial history is stained with many unrighteous deeds. 
We know how capital has exploited labor and made labor a 
means for the end of large profits. We know how labor 
has retaliated. Strikes, riots and often bloodshed has fol¬ 
lowed and we see the fire burning bright in both camps to¬ 
day. 

What must the church do ? Well, she must take the posi¬ 
tion which Christ would take to-day if He were on earth. 
It must not favor capital as some churches are doing, nor 
must she favor labor without question. The church has 
taken sides too often and to her own detriment. 

Without fear or favor she must declare that the sins of 
capital must go, if capital is using ways and means for large 
profits at the sacrifice of fellow men, and the pulpit dare 
not be weak even though capital is sitting in the pew. The 
church must lay bare the sins of labor and whatever labor 
is doing which is not right must be told straight from the 
shoulder that unrighteousness must cease. 

The church has passed the day when it can preach only a 
gospel of heaven. It has reached the day when it must 
stand for the whole truth or get out of business. The 
church has not known very much of a divine and flaming 

153 


THE WANDERER 

passion for justice and it has been silent when great indus¬ 
trial wrongs have taken place. The most notorious indus¬ 
trial injustice has gone by unchallenged and the church has 
not raised her voice in protest. 

She has tolerated corrupt industrial leaders in the church. 
Open and cruel methods have not been denounced as Jesus 
would have denounced them. If the church is here to be 
the healer of social and industrial diseases of men then 
there is only one position which she can have, and that is to 
demand that justice be the supreme ideal of industrial life. 

The church is fighting for her own life to-day and pulpit 
and pew dare not close their eyes to the danger and say: 
“We have no need to fear.” The wealthy as well as the 
poorer churches need to get back to Christ’s position and 
method of dealing with wrongs in every station of life and 
they must preach the gospel of all things new through love, 
justice and equality. 

CHARLES BERDICHEN. 

This question belongs to the realm of metaphysics and as 
such deserves an according treatment. If it were the fact 
that the church as an institution would really devote itself to 
improve the conditions of society, it naturally follows that 
the present industrial unrest would have been met half way. 
If a solution were not found, at least something tangible 
would be discovered to bring unruly labor and bourgeois 
dictatorship together. But the facts at hand point distinctly 
to the fact that in every industrial crisis, the church, as well 
as its representatives, have always sided with the powers 
that are, rather than with the lowly and the meek. It in a 
way shows wherein lies the heart of the church supposed to 
be symbolic of Christianity. 

The church cannot and will not offer a solution to the 
present or any future unrests which may occur in this coun¬ 
try. 


154 


THE WANDERER 

Where was the church in the Ludlow massacre ? Where 
was the church in Lawrence, Mass., where hundreds of 
children were on the verge of starvation from malnutrition ? 
Where is the church in the present steel strike, as well as 
the coal strike ? Where is the church and all its member¬ 
ship, where is the voice of those who preach Christ’s doc¬ 
trine, against the slow starvation of millions of children and 
women all over Europe because they happen to choose a 
form of Government not to the liking of other Govern¬ 
ments. 

FRANKLIN A. AMMON. 

In no age has it been possible to sever the church from 
the State, neither has religious influence been absent from 
industrial circles. If men would apply only a fragment 
of the golden rule to personal, as well as financial affairs, the 
great world war would doubtless have been averted, and the 
present economic chaos avoided. 

The church must be alive to its fullest responsibilities in 
the present crisis, and must burn into the minds of those in 
authority the golden rule and service to the human race. 
If the doctrine of selfishness and class is to prevail, the 
human race will plunge into a black abyss of bloody oblivion. 
Every priest, preacher, rabbi and churchman must imme¬ 
diately put his shoulder to the wheel, establish a common 
brotherhood between capital and labor, and instill in the 
minds directing every activity the love of service. Religion 
is not a dead theory, but a living vital force which must be 
kept burning by the fuel of cooperation. 


155 


THE WANDERER 


IS THERE AN END TO SPACE? 

“Dear God/ annihilate but space and time , 

And make two lovers happy.” 

—Martin us Scriblerus. 

FRANK W. VERY, Westwood Astrophysical Observatory, 
Westwood, Mass. 

T O answer this question categorically, we may say that 
space has neither beginning nor end, because it returns 
into itself. This proposition has been clearly demonstrated 
by our great American astronomer, the late Prof. Simon 
Newcomb; but as his argument is of an exceedingly tech¬ 
nical and intensely mathematical character, it would be dif¬ 
ficult to make it intelligible except to profound mathemati¬ 
cians. 

There is, however, another mode of approaching this sub¬ 
ject which is within the comprehension of an humble-minded 
and earnest seeker of truth; for man is a spiritual being, 
and in respect to his deeper or spiritual faculties, he is al¬ 
ready a denizen of a world of pure spirit which is not space. 

Space cannot be completely defined and made compre¬ 
hensible without some knowledge of the spiritual world. 
How shall we obtain this knowledge? Why, by opening 
our eyes to facts about the inner spiritual life with which we 
are all of us more or less familiar, but which are apt to lie 
dormant and unheeded until some startling event—the pass¬ 
ing of some friend over the threshold of life to come, or 
some unexpected stirring of the hidden springs of our being 
when our hearts are touched and the deeps are moved by 
our angelic guides under God’s Providence—awakens us 
from our lethargic, our sleeping condition. For merely nat¬ 
ural life is like repose upon a bed with closed eyes and 


THE WANDERER 


dulled faculties. But spiritual life is wide awake, real 
earnest, and eager for work, and accomplishment. 

Better still, we can open our ear and listen to the message 
of ‘'the spiritual Columbus,” Emanuel Swedenborg, the first 
explorer of the world unseen by natural eyes, divinely called 
to that mission. Genuine science must be founded on ex¬ 
perience, and here we have the necessary experience in the 
greatest abundance. In the light of these teachings our own 
fragmentary experience of similar things is explained. We 
already know that space cannot separate two loving hearts. 
They thrill to each other’s yearnings, for love comes down 
from heaven and is of that world of superspace which is the 
origin of space. 

JOHN T. BURKE, Night Editor, New York Herald. 

“Is there an end to space ?” I’ll say so! If you are still 
in doubt ask the army of brilliant men—they’ll “tell the 
world” they are that—who have been pleading vainly for it 
with adamantine night editors since the days when we 
printed everything sent in by Pro Bono Publico and Verbum 
Sap. A merciful Providence removed these dear old lads 
before the pulp men boosted the price of newsprint paper 
or they would have known how Othello felt when he lost his 
“blooming situwytion.” 

But cheer up. While there may be none left in the daily 
newspapers you will find space everywhere in places for¬ 
merly occupied by the stuff that made he-men feel the 
“whole world was their oyster.” As, therefore, no one can 
ask me now, “How do you get that way ?” I am yours for a 
“tight” paper. 

L. H. GEORGE. 

The notion of a possible limit to space has been derived 
deductively from the so-called theory of relativity, advanced 
by Dr. Albert Einstein and but recently confirmed by obser- 

J 57 


THE WANDERER 

vations of the last solar eclipse. It would be a grave mis¬ 
take to conclude that Dr. Einstein’s use of the word space 
coincides with our customary employment of it as signify¬ 
ing the limitless vacuous void extending into infinity. On 
the contrary, what he really means, and what the very title 
of his theory—relativity—implies is that our universe of 
matter is finite in extent. For without the presence of 
things there can be no relations. In absolute space there is, 
of course, room for an infinite number of such stellar sys¬ 
tems as we behold around us. 

Now just as the fish of the sea are restricted to water, 
and birds to air, just so may we conceive of the celestial 
orbs as swimming in an ocean of ether, out of whose depths 
no star can stray (because of the restraining force of their 
mutual attraction) and beyond the confines of which not 
even a ray of light can penetrate (because of the want of a 
medium to carry it farther). 

In order that such a conception may be true, it will be 
necessary to concede ponderability to the ether (a property 
heretofore denied to it) as, without the checking force of 
gravitation, there would be nothing to prevent it from gradu¬ 
ally dissipating into the nothingness beyond. But if the 
ether be ponderable, then it must oppose free movement of 
stars and planets in their courses, and we find ourselves 
logically driven to interpret the centrifugal forces, not as 
inertial, as Newton did, but as effects of applied energy, 
to overcome that etheric resistance. 

But is the ether ponderable (i. e., subject to gravitation), 
and if so, how can the fact be proved ? This was the crucial 
point that the solar eclipse was called upon to decide. If it 
is, then a ray of starlight passing close to the sun’s eclipsed 
disc should be deflected a calculable amount out of its rec¬ 
tilinear course; and this is what actually turned out to be 
the case. 

It is not to be supposed that Dr. Einstein reasoned out the 
problem in this simple fashion. Being a mathematician par 

158 


THE WANDERER 


excellence, he chose his favorite method, a method so diffi¬ 
cult that, as he himself put it, there are scarcely a dozen 
men in the world competent to follow and verify his mathe¬ 
matical complexities. He founded his investigations on 
the role that time plays in the changing aspect of the stars 
and speaks of it as a true '‘fourth dimension of space.” 

In untangling such a mathematical snarl as this and 
emerging- with a logical and definite conclusion, Dr. Ein¬ 
stein has won an intellectual triumph of the highest value of 
importance. It means that our particular universe is, as 
it were, an ether ball sealed by a boundary of vacancy, and 
that all the cosmic lines of motion and energy with which 
we have to deal are curves coiled upon themselves again and 
again with the progress of time. 

PROF. SAMUEL C. SCHMUCKER. 

Emanuel Kant, the German philosopher, called certain 
ideas “antinomies.” Space was one of these. The human 
intellect cannot conceive of space-as ending, nor can it con¬ 
ceive of it as not ending. In all practical thinking we must 
consider space as having no end. There are certain philo¬ 
sophical and mathematical lines of reasoning which get far¬ 
ther when they consider space as ending in every direction 
at an infinite distance. 

M. W. JACOBS, JR. 

No answer is possible, from an absolute viewpoint. The 
human mind appears to be so constituted that we cannot 
conceive on the one hand of an infinity of space, or of space 
abruptly terminating, on the other. While we cannot men¬ 
tally envisage, all at one time, the entire infinity of space if 
there be such, we can form notions of certain logical proper¬ 
ties of space and from them legitimately infer that the 
boundary of space, if it exists, is more remote than any 

159 


THE WANDERER 

finite distance however great that may be assigned, and is 
therefore unattainable for us. The argument does not 
prove or disprove the existence of any such real boundary. 

A still wider conclusion that space itself is infinite is an 
excellent “non sequitur,” because it involves an absolute 
knowledge of that aspect of nature we commonly term 
“space/’ The Einstein principle of relativity, which ap¬ 
pears to be making considerable headway recently in scien¬ 
tific circles, asserts that such absolute knowledge of space 
is not only not now in our possession, but is forever un¬ 
attainable, at least by physical experiment or test. 

A species of space may be imagined by the mind which 
has the property of infiniteness, if the right definitions be 
adopted at the start. Whether this mental construct cor¬ 
responds precisely with the space we meet m nature, is an¬ 
other question. 


DO PREACHERS REALLY PRAC¬ 
TICE WHAT THEY PREACH? 

“Out of the pulpit l would be the same man 1 was in 
it , seeing and feeling the realities of the unseen; and in 
the pulpit I would be the same man I was out of it, tak¬ 
ing facts as they are , and dealing with things as they 
show themselves in this world ” 

—George McDonald. 

REV. M. J. SULLIVAN, St. Joseph’s Church, Amsterdam, 
Ohio. 

1 MUST say that I have no adequate knowledge of how 
these good men preach, for God Almighty is the only 
judge of this question. I think, also, taking all sides into 
consideration, such a question to discuss may be a serious 
setback to some great souls. 

160 


THE WANDERER 


I am sure of one thing, that priests, without exception, 
practice scrupulously what they preach, or as the proper 
word should be “teach” as enjoined on them by the God- 
Man himself. Now if priests were lax in this, what would 
become of the salvation of souls, oj* would not God’s word 
and promise become a mockery? What would become of 
morals and authority—human and divine—if priests were 
lax in this? I have no doubt also that every God-fearing 
preacher or Protestant minister does the same, no matter 
what his congregation may consider otherwise. 

HUBBS WEIMER. 

The preacher is my friend, and I am a friend to the 
preacher. Since my early childhood the preacher has been 
a familiar figure in the households to which I have belonged. 
The character of these Christian gentlemen has not changed 
in the 45 years I have known them, and their services to 
their fellowmen have been invaluable. It gives me pleasure 
to look back over the years and find that not in one instance 
has my association with a Christian minister been regretted. 
On the contrary, these were associations for which I am ex¬ 
ceedingly thankful. 

My observation of many of the people who claim that the 
preacher is not sincere, and does not practice what he 
preaches, is, they do not go to church enough to know really 
just what the preacher does preach; second, they do not 
come in contact sufficiently with the preacher in his daily 
life to know whether his conduct conforms to the precepts 
expressed in his Sunday sermon. They base their judg¬ 
ment largely upon the counterfeit preacher, of which there 
are very, very few. 

I am, therefore, unreservedly for the preachers, and be¬ 
lieve as a whole, in the by and large, they practice what they 
preach. 

161 


THE WANDERER 


ANNA PIERCE. 

So long as there are enough people left willing to pay a 
preacher for alternately scolding them and patting them on 
the back, that preacher would be a fool who spoiled every¬ 
thing by practicing his own preachments. Then too, since 
he does not work for a living, he belongs to the privileged 
classes, and doesn’t have to “don’t” as much as the dubbs 
who are so busy looking out for the hereafter that they are 
unconscious about the here. 

And look at the fun the preacher must have all the week 
scanning the newspapers, conning the choicest bits of 
wickednesses he can find to act shocked about on Sunday—- 
smelling out scandals among his parishioners and neighbors 
to moralize about on Sunday—collecting money for the 
heathens so their standard of living may be raised, then 
telling folks—on Sunday—to be satisfied with what the 
Lord sends them, when any one with half an eye can see 
that that will not raise our standard of living, for the Lord’s 
standard is a very, very low one. Look through the Bible 
and see for yourself. 

The preacher’s is a great life and very few of them ever 
weaken! I can’t say I blame them much. When one has a 
good thing one ought to hold on to it. 

To stop talking about a thing when one gets paid for that 
talking and start doing it when there is nothing in it but 
lonesomeness and boredom would be the acme of stupidity. 

No, preachers don’t practice what they preach. It would 
strike at the foundation of their existence, and that would 
be sheer folly! 

H. D. W. ENGLISH. 

No, “preachers do not always practice what they preach.’* 
They are human beings. As a class, they come nearer prac¬ 
ticing what they preach than any other class of men I know. 

Of necessity they must present to their hearers ideals and 
162 


THE WANDERER 


the ideal life. That they fall short of practising or living 
up to that ideal life and those ideals, proves how human 
they are. When we all get more thoroughly into our minds 
that the church is the place where sinners may come with 
perfect freedom, where the preacher, like St. Paul, feels 
his own limitations as to saintship, the sinner will feel more 
at home there, and the preacher will have a real chance to 
aid his erring brother, because he can, with the splendid 
sympathy of a St. Paul, know how subtle and scorching the 
temptation to sin is. 

The easiest thing in the world is to point the finger of 
scorn at the preacher and say: “He don’t practice what he 
preaches. ,, The hardest thing in the world for many of us, 
at least, is to even “touch the hem of his garment” when it 
comes to living up to our own ideals or make our practice 
tally with our professions. 

Cowards use these words as an excuse for their own fail¬ 
ures. The humanness of the ministerial profession, and 
the fact that our churches were organized to redeem sinners 
and not a museum for saints (except in wood and stone), 
is what makes a sympathetic church and a human preacher 
a real help to mankind. 

A. E. SPRENTALL. 

Do preachers always practice what they preach? No, of 
course not, and that, I think, is something to their credit. 

Preachers are honorable men and intelligent, too, but they 
are unfortunate that their profession thrusts upon them 
some absurd doctrines and beliefs. They make an occupa¬ 
tion of teaching that the Bible is the word of God. Having 
taken that position they are obliged to profess a belief in 
everything the book says, and that leads them into making 
some strange statements. 

The Bible states this command from the Lord, “Thou 
shalt not suffer a witch to live.” That statement puts clearly 

163 


THE WANDERER 

before the preacher this dilemma—there are witches, or the 
Bible contains falsehoods. What position will the preach¬ 
ers take? Most of them keep silent and tacitly are hypo¬ 
crites. If forced to take a stand they resort to sophistry 
of some nature and stultify themselves mentally and mo¬ 
rally. The whole Bible is at a variance with modern knowl¬ 
edge, and any man who makes it his occupation to present 
it as a truth tends to strangle progress, and himself. 

AARON THOMAS. 

The responsibility of those who have undertaken the 
Gospel ministry in the name of Christ is very great. They 
stand very prominently before the people as the representa¬ 
tives of Christ—as special exponents of His spirit, and ex¬ 
pounders of the truth. And, as a class, they have had 
advantages above other men for coming to a knowledge of 
the truth, and freely declaring it. On the one hand have 
been great opportunities for pious zeal and devoted self- 
sacrifice for the cause of truth and righteousness; on the 
other great temptations, either to indolent ease or to ambi¬ 
tion for fame, wealth, or power. 

The vast majority of the clergy have evidently succumbed 
to temptations, rather than embraced and used the oppor¬ 
tunities of their positions. As a result, they are the “blind 
leaders of the blind,” (Matt. xv:i4) and together they and 
their flocks are fast stumbling into the ditch of skepticism. 
(Ezek. xxxiv:2-i6.) They have hidden the truth (because 
it is unpopular), advanced error (because it is popular) and 
taught for doctrine the precepts of men (because paid to 
do so). Read Isa. lvino, n and Isa. xxix:i3« 

Generation after generation of the clergy has pressed 
along the beaten track of traditional error. Only occasion¬ 
ally has one been sufficiently awake and loyal to the truth to 
discover error and cry out for reform. It has been so much 
easier to drift with the popular current, especially when 
164 


THE WANDERER 


great men led the way. Thus the power and superior ad¬ 
vantages of the clergy as a class have been misused, al¬ 
though in their ranks there have been—and still are—some 
earnest, devout souls who verily thought they were doing 
God’s service in upholding false systems into which they 
had been led, and by whose errors they also had been in 
great measure blinded. 

JOHN EVANS. 

Evidence tends to prove that no considerable number of 
preachers have practiced what they preached, due largely 
to the fact that the institution of which they were the mouth¬ 
piece was not living a vital truth. In every age preachers 
have given manifestations of unselfish lives. Preachers 
claim to speak a message of love, justice, truth and “glad 
tidings.” History reveals, however, that a vast majority 
of them have used their efforts to maintain the status quo 
and have given exhibitions of fiendish cruelty and injustice 
scarcely equaled in the annals of history. Says Guizot in 
his “History of Civilization 

“But when the question of political securities arose be¬ 
tween power and liberty, when any step was taken to estab¬ 
lish a system of permanent institutions, which might effectu¬ 
ally protect liberty from the invasions of power in general; 
the Church always ranged herself on the side of despotism.” 

When men began to make a business of preaching and 
found it could be made profitable, they soon lost sight of the 
principles said to be the basis of the movement and began 
to lay the foundation of an organization whose chief aim 
was the insurance of their livelihood. Poverty of the found¬ 
ers had no attraction for them, and their ceremonies became 
a lip service; using the names of founders, but ever careful 
to avoid the principles that gave birth to the institution 
and interpreting its early doctrines in a way to please the 
social group possessing the means of supporting the in¬ 
stitution. 

165 


THE WANDERER 

Men of ability are refusing to engage in this work, as is 
evidenced by the cry going up in orthodox churches of a 
dearth of preachers. They know in advance they will be 
hampered by worm-eaten traditions and that other avenues 
present a more advantageous outlet for their talents. 


SHOULD WE HAVE BIRTH 
CONTROL? 

“There was an old woman who lived in a shoe, 

She had so many children 
She did not know what to do. 

She gave them some broth without any bread, 

And whipped them all soundly 
And put them to bed” 

MARY WARE DENNETT, Director, Voluntary Parent¬ 
hood League, New York. 

EGULATION of the family birth rate is a basic neces- 
lA. sity for the health and welfare of babies, mothers, the 
rest of the family and for the community. Having babies 
without regard to the earnings of the parents, their health 
environment or wishes, is as stupid, wasteful and disastrous 
as it would be for a farmer to sow his seed indiscriminately. 

It would do mighty little good to preach to a farmer about 
fertilizing and cultivating a potato field after he had been 
unintelligent enough to plant his potatoes so close together 
that the plants had no room to grow. Likewise, it is equally 
futile for charitable folks to give to tenement-house mothers 
instructions in infant care, when they have been ignorant 
enough to have an annual baby for several years, and the 
family earnings are not enough to give even one baby a de¬ 
cent chance for life and health. 

Of the adult males in Massachusetts 35 per cent were 
166 


THE WANDERER 


earning during “war prosperity” less than $20 a week. The 
proportion in many other States is similar. Can these fa¬ 
thers afford unlimited families? Can the country afford to 
have laws which keep them in ignorance as to how to regu¬ 
late the birth rate? No possible future rise in wages will 
ever give an unlimited family adequate care. 

Isn’t it plain common sense to support the bill backed by 
the Voluntary Parenthood League, asking Congress to re¬ 
move the penalty for circulating contraceptive knowledge. 

DR. HARVEY W. WILEY, M. D., Director, Bureau of 
Food Sanitation and Health, Good Housekeeping. 

I have very decided views on the question. They are of 
a distinctly negative character. The sole purpose that na¬ 
ture has for all living beings is perpetuation. There is no 
other function for which nature cares a farthing. Of ne¬ 
cessity, any artificial birth control is to run counter to nature. 
For economic reasons, any campaign of this kind must, of 
necessity, prove a failure. 

There is just one element of birth control which can ever 
prove of much advantage, namely, subsistence. If the food 
supply drops, or if the effort to obtain food, that is, to make 
a living, becomes more than human beings can accomplish, 
then there will be a natural restriction in the rate of birth. 
A Nation that stands still in population is simply preparing 
to go backward. The means of producing food, and that 
means all the necessities of life, are constantly increasing. 
Scientific agriculture is showing how, without increasing 
the area, to increase production. 

Man has two hands and only one mouth. The capacity of 
the mouth is forever constant. It is the same now as it was 
10,000 years ago, and it will be the same 10,000 years hence. 
The hands are capable of almost indefinite education, and 
are thus able to constantly provide a larger amount of the 
necessities of life. Great men and great women do not al- 

167 


THE WANDERER 


ways come from isolated and thinly settled communities. 
The struggle for existence which hard circumstances pro¬ 
duce is what brings out the truly great and remarkable in 
human nature. 

It may be hard on the millions to produce one genius, but 
it is nature’s way. Moreover, in my opinion, the teaching 
of artificial birth control is highly immoral. It is certainly 
contrary to the status of the country, and I would not 
advise any propaganda which would tend to land the propa¬ 
gandist in jail. I am, as you may gather from the fore¬ 
going, decidedly opposed to any system of education re¬ 
specting the prevention of children. 

MRS. CLARENCE RENSHAW. 

Birth-control means not the limitation of offspring, but 
the regulation of offspring. It demands that the size of the 
family be adapted to the family income and the health of 
the parents. It places its emphasis on quality rather than 
quantity; at the same time guaranteeing that quality means 
eventually the greater quantity. 

“Should not the size of the family be ordered by Divine 
Providence?” asks the dogmatic objector. Since God made 
man in His own image and constituted him His Vicegerent 
on earth, the duty of intelligent family regulation necessarily 
devolves upon man. Man does not hesitate to exercise this 
trusteeship in the regulation of stock and crops. Why 
should he hesitate to apply his intellect to the far more im¬ 
portant problem? 

The children of overcrowded families, the offspring of 
unfit parents, make necessary orphan asylums, homes for 
feeble-minded, reformatories and juvenile courts. These in¬ 
stitutions require and receive tremendous State appropria¬ 
tions; suppose this money could be used constructively! 
Probably it would be sufficient to offer a college education 
to every young person in our Commonwealth. 

168 


THE WANDERER 


When voluntary parenthood is universal, when every 
baby is a welcome baby, we shall have progressed a long 
way in the science of right living. 

JOHN S. SUMNER, Secretary, New York Society for the 
Suppression of Vice. 

Self-control is the only sort of control that should be 
taught and taught without ceasing. Every evil or misfor¬ 
tune arises either directly or indirectly from lack of self- 
control. Birth control, as distinguished from birth preven¬ 
tion, will result from self-control. No one, exercising self- 
control will bring into the world undesired children. Lack 
of self-control is the source of this inhuman evil. 

Character is built by overcoming difficulties—not by resort 
to easy methods. Artificial methods, advocated by pro¬ 
moters of so-called “birth control” spell birth prevention 
which means destruction of the home, the basis of social life. 
They have been the forerunner and will always precede lack 
of character, immorality, and race deterioration and de¬ 
struction. Self-control signifies a world populated by happy 
peoples living in peace and comfort. Lack of it means 
chaos. 

Children of to-day are crammed with superficial knowl¬ 
edge but have not the mental strength of their ancestors be¬ 
cause “easy methods” have been introduced into the schools. 
What is true of intellectual training is true also of sexual 
training. There is no royal road to anything that is de¬ 
sirable. A few flutter through a worthless life without care 
and without character. The millions toil and by their toil 
serve th$ race and serve themselves. They toil for home 
and family—the ambition of every normal human being— 
what 2,000,000 of America’s best manhood yearned for dur¬ 
ing recent months and years of privation abroad. 

Convince women that it is their right to cheat in the mat¬ 
rimonial partnership. Convince men that it is their right 
to indulge without limit. Convince both that by artificial 

169 


THE WANDERER 

means all parental responsibility may be avoided—physical 
life in spiritual death. 

IRA S. WILE, M. D. 

The question is improperly stated. Birth control exists. 
The real question is, “Shall the facts relating to birth con¬ 
trol be made available to all types in the community ?” 

This question involves voluntary parenthood, and a 
knowledge of the means whereby this may be secured and 
controlled. I believe all agitation for the reduction in the 
birth rate on the part of those unable to care for children 
adequately or among those for various reasons unfit to as¬ 
sume the responsibilities of parenthood, should be accom¬ 
panied by a stimulation of interest in parenthood on the part 
of those able to bring up families and thoroughly fitted for 
this function. Birth release is as essential for the welfare 
of the community as a further reduction in the birth rate 
on the part of another section of the population. 

If birth control carries with it the idea of more children 
for those fit for parenthood and capable of advancing the 
welfare of the race, it merits highest approval. If the 
movement for birth control concerns itself, in a negative 
way, merely with the prevention of conception, I believe 
its benefits, because of their negative character, will not 
have the most marked advantages over future generations. 

The idea is not to decimate the race through non-produc¬ 
tion, but to better the quality of the race through limited 
reproduction on the one hand, and increased reproduction 
on the other. Those who now have knowledge of birth 
control should not abuse their knowledge, while those who 
lack the necessary information should have an opportunity 
to secure it. 

GRACE R. PAGE, Secretary, Illinois Birth Control League. 

Yes, it is the necessary preliminary to any scheme of 
social betterment. We may multiply charitable agencies of 

170 


THE WANDERER 


all kinds and they may work all the time, but so long as the 
families of the poor increase without limit it is like brush¬ 
ing back the sea with a broom. Families where the father’s 
wages could support two children in comfort are utterly 
swamped by six or eight. The mother is overworked and 
cannot give the children the physical stamina they should 
have nor the care and attention which would tend to make 
them healthy and useful citizens. Thus the children, the 
parents and society suffer. 

Our country leads the world in the number of mothers 
who are driven to fearful and desperate means of limiting 
their families. In Holland the Government has supported 
clinics for instructing people in contraceptive methods for 
the last 30 years. The birth rate has declined, but so has 
the death rate. Fewer children are born, but fewer die and 
the standards of health and comfort are very high. In 
England a society exists to give this information to married 
people. It is time the United States repealed the laws 
which make it a criminal offense to send such information 
through the mails and enlightened citizens realized their duty 
toward their less fortunate fellows. 


HAS THE WAR PROVED CHRIS¬ 
TIANITY A SUCCESS OR A 
FAILURE? 


“See how these Christians love one another 

—Tertullian in his “Apologeticus.” 


I. V. JOHNSTON. 

C HRISTIANITY teaches, “Thou shalt not kill.” And 
upon first thought it seems the answer would be that 
Christianity had failed, for practically all in the great war 

171 


THE WANDERER 


were Christian nations. Yet the second thought is, how 
much the Christian institutions have done for all people in 
the war. 

Think of our Red Cross, of the English Red Cross, and 
even of the German. How much suffering these organiza¬ 
tions eased! Think of the comfort the army priests and 
chaplains gave to the dying. Think of the work done by 
the minor organizations to help the soldiers along! Then 
think of the work done at home by all the church organiza¬ 
tions ! Think how the Christian women have worked to do 
everything in their power to help! 

If this war was fought so that there would never be any 
more wars, then it has been the greatest kind of a triumph 
for Christianity, but if it is going to result in two great 
armed factions, that are waiting to get at each other, then 
Christianity has failed. 

Every true Christian hopes that this be the last war. Very 
few believe it is, but we must all admit that peace is more 
desirable than anything else in the world, even the Christian 
religion. 

REV. THOMAS CHARLESWORTH. 

This is a pertinent question that cannot be answered fully 
in a few words. It has been asked by the man in the church, 
in the street, and the shallow magazine writer. The former 
thought over the question seriously and logically and ar¬ 
rived at a satisfactory conclusion; the others were abusive 
and sarcastic and declared Christianity is bankrupt and a 
miserable failure. Why were not reason, education, phi¬ 
losophy, art and statesmanship attacked? Suffice it to say 
that in the great crisis the people turned toward religion and 
they were not disappointed. They learned that Christian¬ 
ity is love; that prophecy may fail; that tongues may cease; 
that knowledge may be done away ; but love, the greatest 
thing in the world, never fails. 

172 


THE WANDERER 


War has shown that Chrisitanity has been the greatest 
power, the sweetest comfort, and an eternal hope to the 
soldiers, to the people at home, and to all the world. The 
“White Man” taught the men how to sacrifice for others, 
and they went forth to die for the cause of righteousness, 
feeling faintly that they were following Christ. The repre¬ 
sentatives of the various nations of the world at the peace 
conference grappled with titanic problems with the dominant 
thought that God’s love, mercy and justice must rule, and 
the glory of this present hour lies in the fact that Chris¬ 
tianity was never more triumphant than now, for the true 
brotherhood of man is nearer than ever. “The Beast” is 
overthrown and the Lamb is supreme! 

DR. S. BLOOMBERG. 

In answering this question the terms religion and Chris¬ 
tianity must not be confused. Religion, belief in a Su¬ 
preme Being, a God who rewards for good and punishes for 
bad, is as old as humanity, and as long as there are mys¬ 
teries about our life and death, origin and ending, so long 
will there be religion in the heart and mind as the only solu¬ 
tion to an almost unsolvable problem. 

This interpretation of religion as applicable to the human 
mind has been tried by various peoples. First by the Jews 
and their prophets, later by Jesus and his Apostles, and then 
by Mohammed and his disciples. Christianity is the only 
one of the three, Judaism, Christianity, and Mohammedan¬ 
ism, that has had a chance. For centuries it has not been 
molested from without and has had enough stimulating 
rivalry within to bring out its best efforts and yet—what 
did it do in this last war? Not even the faintest echo of a 
strong voice was heard protesting against this bloody wave 
that threatened to drown humanity! 

There was some excuse for a conflict waged against non¬ 
believers, or for a war in which only a small portion of the 

173 


THE WANDERER 

world was engaged, but there is none for a war like the last 
in which 90 per cent of Christianity was engaged in tearing 
each other to pieces, and in which Christians mercilessly 
slaughtered other Christians, who prayed to the same God 
of Mercy. 

What thinking man could, after witnessing this baccha¬ 
nalia of blood and death, still maintain that Christianity, as 
an interpretation of religion, has proved to be a success ? 


GEORGE JONES. 

True Christianity will never prove to be a failure no mat¬ 
ter what may happen along its pathway or seem to thwart its 
progress. Nominal Christianity certainly proved a failure 
in averting the world war or in being prepared for it. It 
proved a failure in not expecting it according to the Scrip¬ 
tures, but instead generally proclaiming that Christian civi¬ 
lization was so far advanced that another great war was an 
impossibility, which was contrary to the teachings of the 
Bible concerning the end of this age, which would witness 
the greatest time of tribulation that the world has ever 
known or will know (Matthew 24:3, 21, 22). 

The vast majoricy of the leaders and followers of nominal 
Christianity do not yet know the real import of the world 
war and are, therefore, unprepared for the still greater trib¬ 
ulations to follow. The great war has proved the failure of 
churchianity, which is quite different from true Christianity. 
The aim of churchianity is the conversion of the world in 
this age, contrary to the Scriptures, and the war has helped 
to prove the futility of this aim. True Christianity will 
never fail to accomplish its purpose in finding and develop¬ 
ing those who shall be kings and priests and reign with 
Christ for 1,000 years to bless all the families of the earth. 
It will bring in the golden age very soon, which will be the 
desire of all nations (Hag. 2:7). 

m 


THE WANDERER 


GEORGE WEINSTEIN. 

Life being the sum total of all organic phenomena, Christ's 
mandate, “Thou shalt not kill,” is from a social point of 
view the most important of his precepts. The clergy could 
not have been expected to have divorced themselves from 
their social and economic environment—no class or group 
has ever been recorded as doing so—material considerations 
compelling these spiritual guides to condone in the name 
of tribal gods who did duty for “autocratic” Germany as 
well as for the “democratic” Allies, the thing that Sherman 
said was hell. 

To accuse Christianity of having fallen short of expecta¬ 
tions is to admit that there was warrant for hope. It was 
never a philosophy of life, although it was a government of 
church and State, a theocracy, in days that are now happily 
past. No governmental powers are vested in it—it is, and 
was, an institution whose workings can and have been ex¬ 
plained by an examination of the motivating social forces at 
play in the periods where it has functioned. 

Insofar as the great war has shattered many illusions, it 
is not at all unlikely that professing Christians, be they few 
or many, have also been affected. But Christianity will 
have to face the test which is required of all creeds—does it 
serve any earthly use? Judged by this criterion, Christian¬ 
ity has no part to play as an institution or as a philosophy— 
it contributed nothing to stave off the war, and has no mes¬ 
sage for the social wrongs of to-day. 


175 


THE WANDERER 


HOW CAN WE STABILIZE OUR 
FOREIGN EXCHANGES? 

“Money alone sets all the world in motion ” 

—Publius Syrus, Maxim 656. 

HON. CARTER GLASS, Secretary of the Treasury, 
Washington, D. C. 

T HE dollar is now at a premium almost everywhere in 
the world. Its artificial reduction and maintenance 
at the gold par of exchange in all currencies is quite unthink¬ 
able unless we propose to level all differences in the 
relative credit of nations and for our gold reserve sub- , 
stitute a reserve consisting of promises to pay of any Nation 
that chooses to become our debtor. Inequalities of ex¬ 
change reflect not only the trade and financial balance be¬ 
tween two countries, but, particularly after a great war 
such as that we have been through, the inequalities of do¬ 
mestic finance. 

The United States has met a greater portion of the cost 
of the war from taxes and bond issues than any other coun¬ 
try. Largely as a consequence of this policy, the buying 
power of the dollar at home has been better sustained than 
the buying power at home of the currency of any European 
belligerent. For the United States to determine by govern¬ 
mental action to depress the dollar as measured in terms of 
foreign exchange and to improve the position of other cur¬ 
rencies as measured in terms of dollars, would be to shift 
to the American people the tax and loan burdens of foreign 
countries. This shifted burden would be measured by the 
taxes to be imposed and the further loans to be absorbed 
by our people as a consequence, and by increased domestic 
prices. 


176 


THE WANDERER 


United States Government action at this time to prevent, 
in respect to foreign exchange, the ordinary operation of 
the law of supply and demand, which automatically sets in 
action corrective causes, and to prevent the dollar from go¬ 
ing to a premium when its natural tendency is to do so, 
would artificially stimulate our exports, and through the 
competition of export demand with domestic demand, main¬ 
tain or increase domestic prices. 

The view of the governments of the Allies, I take it, is 
that had they (after the war control of their imports had 
been relaxed) attempted to continue to “peg” their ex¬ 
changes here at an artificial level by Government borrowing, 
the effect would have been to stimulate their imports and 
discourage their exports, thus aggravating their already un¬ 
favorable international balances. 

G. A. SCHRIEVER, Foreign Manager, Mellon National 
Bank, Pittsburg. 

The stabilization of the foreign exchanges is generally ac¬ 
complished by an equal or near equal exchange of commod¬ 
ities of one country against those of another, and the more 
equal these exchanges of commodities are the more uni¬ 
form in value are the standards of money of the countries 
trading with one another. Conditions arising out of the 
world war have arraigned exchange rates against the Euro¬ 
pean nations, and if not corrected will inevitably curb the 
expansion of our foreign trade, and eventually crowd us out 
of foreign markets. 

When all the world was at war our manufacturers and 
exporters were overwhelmed with buying orders for goods 
of every description regardless of prices, and our exports 
reached undreamed of proportions. Even now, and for 
considerable time to come, our country will be called upon 
not only to feed hungry millions of European peoples, but 
also to finance their reconstruction work. Viewing condi- 

177 


THE WANDERER 

tions from this angle it would seem a herculean task to bring 
about an adjustment of the foreign exchanges, and it will 
no doubt be a long-drawn-out and tedious process. How¬ 
ever, since we are to continue our role of purveyor and 
financier to the sorely tried countries across the sea, and at 
the same time do not wish to relinquish but rather to in¬ 
crease, our just share of business in the markets of the 
world, it will be necessary for us not only to remain a large 
seller but to become a larger buyer in foreign markets. 

Everybody will agree that no one can expect to maintain 
and continue mutually profitable business relations if the 
trade is all one-sided. If it is not expedient to adjust the 
balance of trade by buying the products of foreign countries 
in greater measure for fear of depressing our home indus¬ 
tries, although this is a very remote possibility on account 
of the lack of raw materials abroad, it will then be neces¬ 
sary for us to export some of our capital through the pur¬ 
chase of and investment in the securities of foreign coun¬ 
tries and thus help to bring about the required adjustment. 
This remedy has been recognized by the leading financial au¬ 
thorities, and the Edge bill, which has just become a. law, 
paves the way for the investment of American capital in 
foreign enterprises. 

GEORGE M. REYNOLDS, President, Continental and 
Commercial Bank of Chicago. 

The problem created by the fall of foreign exchange is, 
like many others now disturbing the world, an outgrowth 
of the war. During the conflict trade was diverted to new 
markets, in which international purchases grew so tremen¬ 
dously as to leave the world largely in their debt on mer¬ 
chandise account. The only permanent cure can come from 
re-establishment of old markets and more even balancing of 
trade activities between old and new. 

Diminished production and destruction created shortages 
of food, merchandise and raw materials in four and one- 
178 


THE WANDERER 


half years of war that cannot be overcome in twice that 
length of time. Trade cannot be re-established faster than 
the productive forces, now crippled in many countries, can 
supply the articles of trade. 

There remain only two ways by which credits can be cre¬ 
ated in sufficient volume to restore foreign exchange to a 
normal basis. We have seen that one of these, international 
trade, will be slow. The other, granting foreign loans by 
countries that have enjoyed favorable trade balances, will 
afford quicker relief. The latter course will involve large 
financing by America. 

The main object should be, first, to prevent starvation and 
utter despair, and, second, to make possible a renewal of 
industry as a means of self-help. Further aid should not 
be granted now, for the peoples of the various countries of 
the world must be made to realize that their salvation de¬ 
pends finally upon their own labor and thrift. Merely for 
the sake of remedying the foreign exchange situation it 
would be unwise to extend help with such prodigality as 
would encourage further idleness and extravagance. In my 
judgment, fairly liberal assistance should be given by the 
United States, especially to England and France, as by so 
doing we would be establishing an economic first line de¬ 
fense. 

DR. J. T. HOLDSWORTH, Vice President, Bank of 
Pittsburg, N. A. 

“We” cannot stabilize foreign exchange, at least not we 
alone. As the word indicates, exchange involves at least 
two parties. Fluctuations in foreign exchange arise from 
shifting balances in international trade. During the war the 
Entente Powers by artificial support stabilized or “pegged” 
foreign exchange at a rate near par. When this support 
was withdrawn European exchanges fell to unprecedentedly 
low levels because the balance of trade with the United 

179 


THE WANDERER 

States was heavy against them, and they had neither gold, 
goods, nor services to meet this balance. The fact is Euro¬ 
pean exchanges will become stable or normal only when 
Europe's exports catch up again with imports. And this 
depends upon how speedily reconstruction proceeds. To in¬ 
crease production and exportation Europe must be provided 
with food and raw materials, and, especially, credit—time 
in which to make payment. 

In the task of helping foreign exchanges back toward nor¬ 
mal, material aid may be found in the new facilities fur¬ 
nished by the Edge foreign finance bill which became law 
December 25. This measure provides for the organization 
of corporations with minimum capital of $2,000,000 empow¬ 
ered to extend long time credits based upon securities of¬ 
fered by foreign buyers. These securities will serve as basis 
for debentures issued by the Edge law corporations to be 
sold to America investors. Though based upon foreign 
obligations debentures will be issued by American concerns 
under supervisory control of the Federal Reserve Board. 
How far this new device will prove effective in relieving the 
critical foreign situation will depend upon how widely our 
people can be induced to invest their savings in this new 
type of security. The machinery has been provided; its 
effective utilization depends upon the investing public. 

P. W. DAHINDEN, Assistant Manager, Foreign Exchange 
Department, First National Bank, Pittsburg. 

Foreign exchange rates, now at their lowest levels, can 
be stabilized only through extension of credits by the United 
States. The credits which would give the importer abroad 
one or more years to pay for his purchases in this country 
would be a help, as it is generally expected that by that 
time rates will be more stable. 

In my opinion, it would, however, be better if investors, 
as well as manufacturers and exporters in this country 
would purchase securities, issued by European Govern- 

180 


THE WANDERER 


ments, in dollars, with a maturity of io or 15 years. For¬ 
eign Governments would obtain dollars in this country and 
could pay for their purchases in dollars without the neces¬ 
sity of paying with their own depreciated currency. This 
would do away with a part of the supply of exchanges on 
the different countries, and would have an immediate ten¬ 
dency to restore a balance. 

This, coupled with dollars different countries would ob¬ 
tain for their products manufactured of raw materials ob¬ 
tained here, would soon place the different currencies far 
above the present levels, and by the time the securities ma¬ 
ture, foreign Governments would be in a position to meet 
them with a currency, if not at par, at least with a very much 
enhanced value. 

To make the sale of such foreign Government securities 
in this country possible, it is, however, necessary that all 
parties interested in the export trade of the United States 
join forces, i. e., it is necessary that the capitalist places 
a certain percentage of his available funds into such securi¬ 
ties, and that the manufacturer and the exporter take in 
payment of at least a part of his goods such securities. 

It is unquestionable that unless we provide some means 
whereby it will not be necessary for European countries to 
tender us in payment of raw materials their currencies 
which have depreciated to an only nominal value, our export 
trade will automatically disappear on account of their in¬ 
ability to pay. 

C. W. BARRON, Editor, Wall Street Journal. 

How can you stabilize the mercury in the thermometer ? 


181 


THE WANDERER 


IS IT NECESSARY TO STUDY THE 
NUDE IN ART? 

“Pm a model, you know ,” said Trilby, (t and ifs just 
rung 12 — the rest. I am posing for Durien, the sculptor , 
on the next floor. I pose to him for the altogether” 
“The altogether?” asked Little Billee. 
t( Yes — Vensemble—you know — head, hands and feet 
— everything—especially feet. Thafs my foot” she said, 
kicking off her big slipper, “lfs the handsomest foot in 
Paris. There 9 s only one in all Paris to match it, and 
here it is,” cried Trilby, as she stuck out the other foot. 

—From “Trilby,” by George DuMaurier. 

MARTIN B. LEISSER. 

T O become a thoroughly equipped and well-trained artist, 
the art student should have all avenues open to him that 
may furnish form and color. We cannot imagine a sculptor 
succeeding in his art without a thorough understanding of 
the human form, and this can only be accomplished by the 
study of the nude, beginning with the drawing of the skele¬ 
ton and following it up with the study of anatomy, becom¬ 
ing well acquainted with the muscles, their relation to each 
other and their wonderful uses and of employing them. 
While pursuing this study one must acquire the skill of 
drawing and modeling from the nude. 

Most sculptors model their figures, even when they are to 
be clothed, first without drapery, and only after they have 
decided upon the attitude of the figure, or figures, and their 
grouping, movement and proportion, line and masses hav¬ 
ing been considered, all this being done in the nude, are they 
draped or left undraped, as the subject may require. 

We think all sculptors will claim the study of the nude 
is absolutely necessary. How about the painter? Surely 
the landscape artist does not require the study of the nude 
182 


THE WANDERER 


figure in order to paint a barn or to draw a haystack! The 
student of the figure, who in later years becomes a landscape 
painter, most likely would tell you that his study from the 
model has helped him to see the beautiful in nature, and the 
practice and art-incentive then obtained now helped him to 
produce the kind of landscape you so much admire. 

JOHN R. COVERT. 

In the Bible you find that God created man in His own 
image—both naked—they were not ashamed. Form of 
great imagination. The nude then offers a visual contact 
with God. Art cannot discard it. To imagine art without 
God is impossible. 

The study of the nude is necessary. It has been too much 
neglected. At present the world has no great painter of 
the nude, unless it be Marcel Duchamp. His great picture 
“The Nude Descending the Stairs,” which to my mind sym¬ 
bolizes birth; the nude comes from above—descends to 
earth. The message is not to forget that God created man 
in his own image. 

After the creation God commanded man not to eat of the 
tree of knowledge of good and evil. But man did. Now 
the artist is supposed to starve rather than not be true to his 
art, and there is a popular superstition, encouraged, I think, 
by the artists themselves, that they usually starve to death. 
Probably not true but clever propaganda. 

I've known only one to actually starve—a girl in New 
York last winter—a student of Visual God—the nude. 

WILLIAM J. GLACKENS. 

Is it necessary to study the nude in art ? Most certainly 
I consider the study of the nude as necessary in the pursuit 
of art. I think it is a good time to bring up this question as 
I haven’t the slightest doubt that before long the “Anti- 
Saloon League” or some kindred body will begin a drive to 

183 


THE WANDERER 

abolish the “nude in art” and we should be prepared to resist 
to the utmost. 

ROBERT HENRI. 

Is it necessary to study from the nude ? In answer I will 
say that it is certainly very desirable not only during the 
student days, but throughout an artist’s whole experience. 
With artists the student period never ends. 

There is nothing in all the world more beautiful or more 
significant of the great laws of order than the human body. 
In fact it is not only among the artists but among all peo¬ 
ple that an even greater appreciation and respect for the hu¬ 
man body should develop. When we respect the human 
body we will no longer have any shame about it. We will 
be healthier and cleaner. 


JOHN S. SUMNER, Secretary, New York Society for the 
Suppression of Vice. 

On information and belief, it is necessaiy for a student 
who intends to do portrait or human figure work, painting 
or sculpture, to study from the nude. Whatever the ex¬ 
tensive inclusion of the nude human figure in decorative art 
tends to social improvement is another question. As a rule 
that form of art has been the product of a deteriorating, 
rather than a virile people. It indicates a luxury loving, 
soft social condition. I doubt if there has been much of 
this “pretty” work during the past five years. 

What every clean-minded person should revolt at is the 
perversion of the nude in the form of photographs from life 
and inartistic copies of real art made for the purpose of 
commercializing nudity and advertised and sold as den pic¬ 
tures, etc. These are the product of degenerates and for 
degenerates. 

Study of the nude has a place in true art to which no ex¬ 
ception can properly be taken. 

184 


THE WANDERER 


REV. W. J. COLEMAN, Pastor, Allegheny Reformed 
Presbyterian Church. 

Unfortunately I have not been a student of art, even on 
the moral side, to such a degree as to warrant me in ven¬ 
turing a public discussion of the subject. Of course as a 
minister of the gospel of Jesus Christ I would take the nega¬ 
tive of this question, and in the use of the word “necessary’ 
you have given that side the long end of the rope, for while 
some might think a study of the nude in art to be altogether 
proper and desirable, it can hardly be considered necessary. 

HOWARD K. HILL. 

If one is going to be a portrait painter, then I think it is 
necessary to study the nude in art, but if one is going to be 
a landscape painter I do not see why any one should do it. 
I think the idea that one to be a sign painter or an adver¬ 
tising artist must study the nude is an idea of the past. It 
has gone out of date for a man to waste io or 15 years por¬ 
ing over a drawing-board drawing nudes. 

If the nude must be studied I do not think men and 
women should draw in the same class from a nude model 
as they do in some places in America and in Europe. I 
think the women and the men should be in different rooms 
when drawing the nude, and I cannot see why even at that 
that a model should not wear some drapery. The idea that 
the model must be in the “altogether” is merely a supersti¬ 
tion originating in such places as the Latin quarter of Paris 
and Greenwich Village, New York. Success does not lie in 
the model, but in the artist himself—his talent and ability 
to work. Immorality and the so-called “free life of the 
art student are generally stumbling blocks to fame, and what 
most of our art classes need is renovating. 


THE WANDERER 


SHOULD THE ALLIES WITHDRAW 
THEIR TROOPS FROM RUSSIA? 

We all remember Aesop's fable of “The Wolf and the 
Lamb” “As a wolf was lapping at the head of a run¬ 
ning brook, he spied a stray lamb paddling at some dis¬ 
tance down the stream . Having made up his mind to 
seize her, he bethought himself how he might justify his 
violence . *VillainV said he, running up to her, ‘how 

dare you muddle the water that 1 am drinking? 9 ‘In¬ 
deed 9 said the lamb humbly, 7 do not see how I can 
disturb the water, since it runs from you to me, not from 
me to you ' ( Be that as it may, 9 replied the wolf, ( it was 
but a year ago that you called me many ill names 9 ‘Oh, 
sirl 9 said the lamb, trembling, s a year ago / was not 
born 9 ‘Well 9 replied the wolf, ‘if it was not you, it was 
your father, and that is all the same; but it is no use 
trying to argue me out of my supper; 9 and without an¬ 
other word he fell upon the poor lamb and tore her to 
pieces” 


SANTERI NUORTEVA, Secretary, Russian Soviet 
Government Bureau, New York. 

I N reply to your question, “Should the Allies withdraw 
their troops from Russia?” I have the following state¬ 
ment to make: 

“The immediate withdrawal of foreign troops from Rus¬ 
sia is urged by international law, humanity and common 
sense. The American and Allied governments have not de¬ 
clared war upon Soviet Russia. Russia, which never ag¬ 
gressed against the Allies, has repeatedly sought to estab¬ 
lish friendly economic relations with the American and Al¬ 
lied peoples. The Soviet Government accepted both the 
Prinkipos peace proposal and the peace terms of the Ameri¬ 
can Government proposed through the Bullitt mission to 
Moscow last winter. Soviet Russia is ready to enter re- 

186 



THE WANDERER 

sponsible relations with other countries and has expressed 
its willingness to assume its share of the financial obliga¬ 
tions of old Russia. The presence of foreign troops, which 
has already caused much unnecessary and fruitless blood¬ 
shed, delays the establishment of peace, order and economic 
prosperity within Russia; impedes the economic restoration 
of Europe, and menaces the peace of the world. Foreign 
military activities in Russia and the support of counter¬ 
revolutionary elements, directly encourages those negligible 
factions who hope for the restoration of the old despotic 
monarchical regime. Without foreign encouragement and 
support, these reactionaries would cease their intrigues and 
disturbances, thus permitting the Soviet Government to give 
all its attention to the immediate business of building up the 
industrial and agricultural life of Russia, rendering her in 
peace and prosperity more useful to herself and to the rest 
of the world, Russia offers her vast natural resources to 
replenish the exhausted stores of the world. Liberation of 
the natural wealth of Russia from the restrictions of block¬ 
ade and foreign invasion would bring new supplies of food¬ 
stuffs and other necessities to the relief of peoples every¬ 
where suffering from shortage and high prices. Russia of¬ 
fers peace and economic aid to the world. Why refuse it ?” 

CARL F. JONES. 

When a man and his wife are quarreling they want to be 
left alone, and they resent any kind of outside interference. 
If any of the European nations had come over and had tried 
to restore order here in America during the Civil War they 
would have had a very thankless task, and we of the North 
have never forgiven England with the way she tried to se¬ 
cretly sneak into our fight. This same thing applies to the 
domestic squabble over in Russia, and if the most reliable 
resources can be depended upon the Russian people prefer 

187 


THE WANDERER 


to be left alone to fight it out among themselves without any 
outside help. And since the people of Russia do not want 
our interference, and there is not the disposition among the 
American people to throw their son’s lives away for a whim, 
and since we can possibly have no secret designs upon gain¬ 
ing a slice of Russia, why should we keep our troops over 
there even if the other Allies—principally England—wishes 
to do so? 

The better thing and the more noble thing for us to do 
would be to get ready to recognize the Republic of Russia, 
holding up our aim of self-determination for all people. 
For even if the Bolsheviki are as cruel and as barbarous as 
painted, still the Bolsheviki are what the majority of the 
people seem to want, and if they can stand it why should 
the rest of the world sit around and wail about it? But 
as a rule the thing that the majority wants is the best thing 
in the end, and we all know the old saying, “small choice in 
rotten apples,” as there is nothing better for them to look 
forward to—an Allied (mainly English) dynasty in Russia 
does not seem to appeal to the masses—they naturally cling 
to the Bolsheviki, and cry, “Better the devil we know, than 
the devil we don’t know.” 

JACOB SANOKUR, Editor, Golos Truzenika. 

On the question, “Should the Allies withdraw their troops 
from Russia?” we always stand for the position that Rus¬ 
sia should be left alone to settle her own domestic matters. 
This is not only our own opinion but that of 5,000 of our 
readers. 

All people of America who believe in democracy and are 
not bribed or blinded by international capitalist cliques ought 
to remember the traditions of their fathers who fought for 
the liberty of this country and who signed that historic docu¬ 
ment, the Declaration of Independence. 

We stand not only for the withdrawal of the Allied troops 
188 


THE WANDERER 


from Russia and letting'the Russians decide their own af¬ 
fairs but we recognize that the duty of every lover of free¬ 
dom is to help Russia, as a fit people not only for their own 
liberty but for the liberty of the oppressed of the earth and 
the emancipation of the human race. 

To recall the troops from Russia, to allow all who want 
to leave this country for their native land, to liberate from 
slavery the Russian soldiers who fought for the freedom 
of France and are now imprisoned by the Allied murderers, 
that is where we stand. 

JAMES B. HARROW. 

The war was fought for democracy, that all countries 
should be free, so why should we desert Russia in her fight 
for freedom and leave her struggling in a state of anarchy 
and chaos from which she cannot free herself without aid 
from outside? Not to aid Russia now would be a. crime, 
and the aim of the Allies should be to send troops to Rus¬ 
sia until the Lenine-Trotzky imperialistic dynasty is over¬ 
thrown and the Russian people are freed from worse 
tyranny than the old czardom. 

By all this I do not mean to say that I do not think that 
both Lenine and Trotzky are sincere, and I will even go so 
far as to say that on the whole I believe that they both are 
trying to do what they think is right, but I do not think that 
either of them are capable of knowing what is best for great 
Russia, and that a continuance of their rule will only mean 
one thing—a complete demoralization of Russia. 

My idea is to have the Allies go in, restore order, fix 
a firm government and then turn the whole thing over to the 
Russian people. I am aware that this last is the great 
stumbling block, for a nation or nations who go to the 
trouble, loss of life and expense to restore order to a coun¬ 
try naturally expect the whole or a slice of the restored 

189 


THE WANDERER 


country—quite the way England gobbled India, and some 
would have us gobble Mexico—yet in spite of this I believe 
that this is the right and just thing to do, and I hope it 
will be done soon, before the Bolsheviki get too strong a 
hold upon the poor, suffering people of Russia. 

ELLSWORTH GEIST. 

A heinous crime has been committed! The gentle Czar 
is dead! Turn out the guard! 

The proprietor of Siberia, the father of the secret police, 
the protector of the Jews, the tool of the holy Rasputin, 
has been struck down by a commoner. The soldiers, by 
all means! 

The Frenchman who lived in constant fear of the Hohen- 
zollerns had a brother in Russia who was daily menaced by 
the Romanoffs. The Prussian fist fell no heavier upon 
France than the Czar’s whip upon his own country. When 
the Prussian was expelled from France, we celebrated joy¬ 
fully, and our conscience was not troubled about the Ger¬ 
man’s dead. Then why, in the name of reason, should we 
feel so finicky about a little Russian bloodshed? Innocent 
people have lost their lives in the Russian readjustment, no 
doubt, but even though the Bolsheviki are as bad as they 
are painted, they cannot present a record of atrocities that 
will approach in number the horrors inflicted by the aristoc¬ 
racy of Russia. 

The titles President, Sheriff and Councilman do not mean 
democratic government when the holders of the titles are 
Romanoffs. The Russians apparently want a real democ¬ 
racy, and not a make-shift set up by the Allied soldiers. 


THE WANDERER 


WHAT IS YOUR INTERPRETA¬ 
TION OF JONAH AND THE 
WHALE? 

Third fisherman: “Master, / marvel how the fishes 
live in the sea” First fisherman: “Why, as men do 
a-land; the great ones eat up the little ones . I can com¬ 
pare our great misers to nothing so fitly as a whale; ’a 
plays and tumbles, driving the poor fry before him, and 
at last devours them all at a mouthful. Such whales l 
heard on ’a land, who never leave gaping, till they’ve 
swallowed the whole parish, church, steeple, bells and 
allr 

—Shakespeare in “Pericles.” 
W. E. VAN AMBURGH. 

I N reply to your question, “What is your interpretation of 
the story of Jonah and the whale?” Why so much con¬ 
troversy about the Bible story of Jonah and the whale? 
Indeed, we might ask, why so much cynical criticism against 
the Bible by higher critics and evolutionists in general ? 

To our understanding, the story of Jonah and the whale 
is a simple narrative of what actually took place. Jonah 
is mentioned II Kings xiv:25, and credited by our Lord 
on two different occasions, and the incident of his being 
swallowed by a whale referred to as fact in both Matthew 
xii 139-40, and Matthew xvi:i4. Why such an incident 
should seem so incredible is peculiar. In fact, so many 
of these various critics themselves swallow a camel along 
the lines of their own reasoning, while they endeavor to 
strain at a gnat in attempting to explain the story of Jonah 
and the whale. 

Some years ago we read an interesting account given 
by James I. Buchanan, a Bible class teacher, and prominent 

191 


THE WANDERER 

business man of Pittsburg, briefly stated as follows: “The 
Bible is sufficient evidence for me, but occasionally I get 
interested in comparing this miracle with modern phenom¬ 
ena which remains unexplained.” He then directed the 
attention of his class to the account of a seaman’s similar 
experience during a whaling voyage, reported in the public 
press about eight years ago (about 1896). The published 
account told how the whale’s nose broke the small boat 
to splinters, and how one of its occupants was swallowed. 
Subsequently the whale was killed and the man found un¬ 
conscious in its stomach. Later he told that he could breathe 
there, but found it intolerably hot. His skin was very 
red, probably the result of the action of the acids of the 
whale’s stomach. In other words, he was in process of 
digestion. 

The story is so similar to that of Jonah as to be well 
worth remembering, and we were specially interested in 
some verification which Mr. Buchanan related to the re¬ 
porter. He said: 

“Not long after that George Jarvie, a cousin, and a Scotch 
sailing master, happened to be a visitor at my home. One 
day I mentioned the New Zealand whale story. 

“He said he had read the story, had heard it among 
the seamen of the islands, and the story was generally be¬ 
lieved and vouched for among the seafaring men. He 
explained to me how the sailors of that region considered 
the fish story. His version tallied with that of the news¬ 
paper clipping, which Mr. Jarvie had never read. 

“The fish prepared for Jonah’s residence was apparently 
not common in Jonah’s time, because no name is given 
for the fish. Almost a thousand years later some one 
conceived it was a whale that had swallowed Jonah.” 

Mr. Buchanan said that his sister, who had visited the 
New Zealand Islands, had also been told the modern whale 
story, as she had heard it from people who claimed to know 

192 


THE WANDERER 


the sailor who had been swallowed by the whale, and men 
who had served on the ship at that time. 

H. G. BRIGGS, M. D. 

The Jonah-Whale story is one of the many myths and 
monstrosities of the Bible and should not be taken seriously. 
It is waste of time to apply scientific tests, as, for want 
of air, Jonah could not pray in the whale’s belly; the acids 
in the stomach of the whale would immediately have 
rendered him oblivious as to whether or not he afterwards 
became a part of the whale, or was still-vomited ashore; 
the throat of a Mediterranean whale is almost too small to 
swallow a herring. 

Scarcely a clergyman, Catholic or Protestant, will look 
you in the eye and say he believes the story as true, as 
inspired divine truth—unless the clergyman is himself an 
inspired idiot or a Jonathan Edwards bigot. 

Then there is the story of Mother Eve and the snake— 
of the Virgin Mary and the ghost—the story of Balaam’s 
talking ass that could speak fluently in ancient Hebrew— 
the story of the mighty General Joshua, who made the sun 
stand still until he had completed his day’s killing. 

Let us give the Bible myths and legends the same degree 
of credence that we accord to the nursery stories of the 
cow that jumped over the moon and the cat which played 
the fiddle, and we will be less harmful to our fellow men 
and much more happy ourselves. 

PROF. ALBERT KNUDSEN, Boston University School 
of Theology. 

The Book of Jonah is an allegory teaching in a most 
impressive way the universality of the divine grace and the 
duty of Israel to make known to the heathen world the 
knowledge of the true God. To take the book as literal 
history is to miss altogether the real point to the narra¬ 
tive. What the author aimed to do was to rebuke Israel 

193 


THE WANDERER 


for its narrowness and exclusiveness in failing to carry out 
its divinely appointed mission to the world. 

DR. LOUIS WALLIS. 

People who fuss about Jonah and the whale are like 
folks who go to a play and argue so much about the stage 
settings that they lose the story. The trouble with the 
whale is that he swallowed not only the prophet, but also 
the whole Book of Jonah in addition. The book is meant 
to teach religious toleration and universalism, but has been 
used for the opposite purpose. The writer of the book 
employed the figure of a narrow, intolerant bigot as a 
dark background for a broad spiritual perspective. Jonah 
(whether a real person or a literary creation) belonged to 
the cheap, standpat school of prophecy which had plenty 
of real and veritable representatives in Bible times. The 
standpat prophets had the official advantages at first; and 
they fought the insurgent prophets, such as Amos and 
Jeremiah, who were the ancient equivalents of our modern 
“soap-boxers.” But the soap-box prophets finally won out, 
because God was with them; and they became the canonical 
“true prophets,” who have largely been misunderstood by 
church folks for the same reason that the whale has swal¬ 
lowed the whole Book of Jonah. 


IS PRIVATE PROPERTY SECURE? 

Factory windows are always broken. 

Somebody’s always throwing bricks; 

Somebody’s always heaving cinders, 

Playing ugly Yahoo tricks. 

Factory windows are always broken . 

Other windows are let alone. 

No one throws through the chapel-window, 

The bitter , snarling , derisive stone. 

194 


THE WANDERER 


Factory windows are always broken. 

Something or other is going wrong. 

Something is rotten~l think , in Denmark * * * 
End of the factory-window song. 

—Vachel Lindsay. 

CHARLES W. ERVIN, Editor, New York Call. 

N OT under the present disorderly and unscientific sys¬ 
tem of society called capitalism. Under this co-called 
“system” the vast majority are propertyless, the only thing 
they possess being a share in the public debt. If you want an 
eloquent exhibit of how insecure private property is, com¬ 
pare the census of 1850 with that of 1900, and see how, 
in 50 years, covering the intense development of capitalism 
in this country, an ever increasing volume of wealth pro¬ 
duced by the many has been absorbed by the few. The 
records of every township in the United States show that 
the capitalist “system” is the greatest menace to private 
property. Very few people really own property. Homes, 
farms and other real estate holdings constantly change 
hands through foreclosure of mortgages or failure to pay 
taxes, and the present holders of such property really own 
only the right to use it, and lose that right if they become 
unable to pay taxes or interest on their mortgages. 

Of course, if you mean private property in the hands 
of a few who have stolen it from the many, that is an¬ 
other matter. If you mean loot in the hands of “steel 
kings,” who have exploited hundreds of thousands of toilers 
of hundreds of millions of dollars, then I would say that, 
with the growing intelligence of the people, this kind of 
private property, which is really stolen property, is very 
insecure in the hands of present holders. 

Under a sane system of society, such as a co-operative 
commonwealth, every industrious man and woman would 
hold private property. As none of them would hold any 
property that should be socially owned, and as their posses- 
195 


THE WANDERER 

sion of private property would not enable them in any way 
to exploit the toil of their fellow citizens, there would be 
every incentive for the vast majority to do everything to 
protect all property in the hands of holders, under a sys¬ 
tem in which the worker would receive the full social 
value of his work. Such a system of society would give 
every one a real stake in the country, a real share in the 
public property, and allow every citizen to own private 
property, so long as it did not in any way menace the 
public weal. 

CORNELIUS D. SCULLY. 

I believe private property, as an institution, to be secure, 
and private property as an institution will be secure for 
a great many generations, until civilization has advanced to 
a point where thought of self has been entirely lost in devo¬ 
tion to others. This does not mean that the private property 
of each of us, or of our children, may not, at any time, 
be taken away by a social and economic upheaval, which 
may result from revolt against real or fancied wrongs on 
the part of the general body of the population. Such a 
revolt would be no respecter of persons or of property. 

The way to prevent such a revolt is to distinguish in 
our thinking between forms of property which are purely 
the result of personal effort and forms of property which 
are the result of special privilege; between forms of prop¬ 
erty which inherently belong to the public and forms of 
property which result from man’s labor. The way to secure 
to each the full results of his labor will be to make proper 
provision that that which is social in its nature and belongs 
to all shall be the property of all and may not be appro¬ 
priated by any individual. The Government has the power, 
through taxation, to accomplish this result practicably and 
with no economic disturbance. 

196 


THE WANDERER 


FRANK STEPHENS. 

Private property will never be secure until we as a 
community realize the difference between that which is 
really private property (that which is made by man’s labor 
and is ethically the property of him who makes it or of 
him to whom the maker gave or sold it) and that which 
can never rightly be private property (because no man 
made it) but which is held to-day as private property as 
the slave used to be—the free gift of nature to all—the 
land. 

GEORGE EDWARDS. 

No; private property, as the words “private property” 
are generally understood, is not secure; nor should it be. 
At present we recognize a right of private property in things 
that are not the product of toil, that is in land and the 
natural resources. 

Land is the free gift of nature to all of living mankind, 
and, therefore, should not be owned. For, if the earth may 
be owned and owners may do as they please with their own, 
they may exclude the non-owners, which means they may 
murder them. They are actually doing this all over the 
world by law. 

The value of land is the creation of the whole com¬ 
munity. When any part of this value is left in the hands 
of so-called owners, the community is robbed to that ex¬ 
tent. If the community took this value in full in the form 
of annual rent or tax no owner could profit by mere own¬ 
ership, as he would have to then put the land to its highest 
and best use or get off. The effect would be to give to 
labor the full product of its toil and the abolition of poverty 
and crime by making exploitation impossible. 

By not being forced to use or get off, as now, the land- 
owner takes wealth for which he does not labor. This 
gigantic theft of the value of land is what makes all nght- 

197 


THE WANDERER 

fill property insecure, and will in the end, destroy this 
civilization as it has every civilization before it. 

No; with this injustice prevailing, nothing is secure— 
not even human life. 

MARIAN BROWNING. 

It is secure and will always remain so, if by “private 
property” is meant the things privately owned for private 
use. But if by “private property” is meant the accumulated 
riches of a bloated few, I’ll answer—No. I never knew 
anything to be so decidedly insecure. And rightly so, for 
no one should be permitted more than he or she can reason¬ 
ably use and enjoy. 

The workers, be they of the brain or brawn variety, 
are slowly but surely awakening to the systematized rob¬ 
bery of the fruits of their toil. With only one eye open 
so far, action has already begun toward stopping their ex¬ 
ploitation. What do you suppose will happen when both 
eyes are open and things as they are are seen in the full 
light of an awakened intellect ? 

The “private” fortunes amassed by trickery, plain swin¬ 
dling and often open thievery, are doomed; they are the 
last of their kind, unless the American voter is a bigger 
ass than he appears. All that is needed to topple the 
privileged class along with its private property from the 
fence on which it shivers now, into the gutter, is to let a few 
more of us be hungry a bit oftener and deny us more of 
the decencies and necessities of life. That will do the 
trick nicely! 


,THE WANDERER 


WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THE 
ZIONIST MOVEMENT? 

When a great movement , either racial, religious or 
political, takes place in the world, there are sponsors 
and opposers arrayed on the two sides. Hence it is so 
with the Zionist movement, and the following are some 
of the expressions of opinion: 

REPRESENTATIVE GUY E. CAMPBELL of Penn¬ 
sylvania. 

I SEE no reason why I cannot endorse the movement to 
establish a Jewish Homeland in Palestine. Certainly 
these oppressed people are entitled to this recognition. The 
history of the Christian world began in Palestine, and 
I believe all Christians everywhere will favor this project 
in the interest of a race which has contributed SO' much 
to the development of ancient and modern civilization. 

MAURICE LOUIS AVNER. 

It is decided that out of the turmoil that we have wit¬ 
nessed and out of the travail humankind has suffered, a 
right shall issue for every wrong and a glory shall fie born 
for every tragedy. For the wrongs of two thousand years 
the Jewish people demand the right to re-establish them¬ 
selves in their still unpeopled home, free to. serve humankind 
by the development of such talent as is inherent in them 
as a people, free to give to civilization something, whatever 
it may be, which will be a fitting compensation for the 
patience and resignation with which they bore the wrongs 
so freely visited upon them. For the tragedies of their 
individual lives as of their group existences, the Jewish 
people demand freedom to live the manner of life and the 

199 


THE WANDERER 


form of life of which they were so long deprived, free to 
mix with the peoples of their native lands or free to live 
a people’s life, a national life in their Palestinean Home¬ 
land. 

Only Jewish blood was spilled on all the battlefields, only 
the Jew, of all the warring elements, suffered the heroic 
sorrow of cutting down the bone of his bone, the flesh of 
his flesh. Only the Jew had the exquisite torture of 
spilling his brother’s blood in a burst of patriotic service 
undimmed in the presence of Belgian, French, English or 
Teuton devotion. Shall not then peace grant to Jewry 
the virtue of seeing God’s promise fulfilled in it, according 
to its own traditions, in consonance with its undying yearn¬ 
ings. Who will challenge the allegiance of the American 
Jew in whose minds those traditions still linger and crave 
for indulgence or in whose heart those yearnings still ache 
for realization? Who, loving justice and being just, be he 
Jew or be he Gentile, will dare continue to thwart God’s 
Will? Palestine must be restored. Palestine will be re¬ 
stored. 

RABBI MAURICE M. MAZURE. 

It would be a splendid achievement if a million Jews 
could settle in Palestine. It would be a blessing to them 
and a boon to the country. There the Jews would not 
only be “emancipated,” that is, freed from political re¬ 
strictions, but with it would come every development of 
body and soul of a people who have suffered continuous 
martyrdom for centuries, in the lands where human rights 
were denied them. 

There would be a renaissance of Hebrew culture and a 
revival of the Hebrew language, which in truth, has never 
been dead. 

But even the settlement of a million or so Jews in Pales¬ 
tine would not solve the so-called “Jewish problem.” These 
problems must be solved in the lands where the many 

200 


THE WANDERER 


millions of Jews are settled, by granting them equal rights 
with other citizens of the land, not only on paper, but in 
spirit as well. 

As far as the prophetic promise of the restoration is 
concerned, should Palestine become an independent Jewish 
republic, even this will, for the Jew, be far, yea, very far 
from the fulfillment of the prophetic ideal; for the restora¬ 
tion of the Jews was not to be only a physical restoration, 
but a regeneration of the spirit; and with the Jewish regen¬ 
eration was to be bound up the spiritual regeneration 
of the whole world. 

The prophets’ “day” was not like unto “Der Tag” of 
Teutonic kultur, a day of conquest, through blood and 
iron, but a day on which God shall be One, and His name 
shall be One; a day when “nations shall beat their swords 
into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks, and 
they shall learn war no more.” 

The first glimpse of the prophetic vision of a world 
brotherhood is the much discussed league of nations, when 
people will, at first, be forced to respect one another’s 
rights, and later, through conviction, realize that one God 
has created us all, and that we are all children of one 
Father. 

RABBI SAMUEL ZAHLER. 

Because I am a Jew and like Judaism, I firmly stand on 
the Zionistic platform. And I do not doubt that every Jew 
with whom Judaism has not lost its interest stands on 
the same platform. Is there any possibility for a natural 
and unrestricted existence of Judaism without the realiza¬ 
tion of the Zionistic ideals? Is not the relation of Zionism 
to Judaism the relation of material to form? This fact 
is clear to every one who has a dim idea of Jewish history. 
Only the anomalous Jew who is indifferent to the form 
slanders the material. The Jewish Jew, however, feels 
deep down in his heart an inexpressible affection for Zion, 

201 


THE WANDERER 


and is imbued with the conviction that the only safeguard 
for Judaism is Palestine. 

And this affection for Zion was by no means recently 
created. It is profound error common to many that Herzl 
originated Zionism and his followers spread it to the Jewish 
masses. We are indebted to Herzl merely for his attempt 
to give concrete shape to our Zionistic ideals. But Zionism 
is much older. It is as old as the Jewish Nation, and be¬ 
gins with the first pages of our history. As an unbroken 
thread it runs through the whole of our literature, pre- and 
post-exile alike. Zionism is thus an instinct in the organism 
of the Jewish people, an instinct which was successfully 
fostered and strengthened by their teachers and educators. 
We have always loved Zion as children love their mother, 
and will continue to love her all the more because of her 
old age. 

All speculations of the so-called anti-Zionists are there¬ 
fore quite futile. Philosophical arguments cannot reason 
away the instinct of love which roots deeply in our or¬ 
ganization. There are no better reasons proving the ab¬ 
surdity of loving father than those given by Schiller in “The 
Robbers.” The hero, Francis, is a master in argumentation, 
indeed. And yet, he is quite powerless to eradicate our 
filial affection. In spite of all he tells us we will not cease 
to love our parents. So we Jews will continue to love 
our Zion, it matters not whether this love is justified from 
philosophical viewpoints. 

Francis is a master in argumentation! That is our only 
reply to all those well-learned and high-educated anti-Zion¬ 
ists. With all due respect to their scholarship, we may 
assure them that their mental effort to subdue Zionism 
is a mere waste of brains. They may prove themselves 
harmful to the realization of it which implies the realiza¬ 
tion of the most sacred ideals of Judaism. But Zionism 
will always remain, as it was, an instinct in each and every 
Jewish heart 


202 


THE WANDERER 


REV. ROY B. WINTERSTEEN. 

I do not think that the attempt to set up a Jewish Nation 
in Palestine is practicable or just or desirable. 

It is not practicable because the land is poor and can 
support only about a fourth of the Jews in the world. The 
most persecuted might be drawn to it, but others who would 
not wish to go would be more sharply persecuted because 
their enemies would conclude that the place for the Jews 
was in their own Nation. But the Jews throughout the 
world have grown into the life of the communities where 
they reside and could not transfer themselves to Palestine 
without hardship and loss. 

It is not just, because the Jews in Palestine number 
100,000 against a total population of 600,000. Manifestly 
one-sixth of the people of the land cannot claim the Nation 
in their name if the principle of self-determination ap¬ 
plies. Freedom of colonization, however, would permit such 
development as would take place naturally and would offer 
a haven of refuge. 

It is not desirable either for the Jews or for the world. 
Because of their dispersion the Jews have found richer op¬ 
portunities for self-expression than they ever could have 
had in Palestine. This has been eminently so in business, 
statesmanship, letters, philanthropy, social reform, and now 
is particularly true in religion. Modern thought has re¬ 
acted on Judaism to produce a liberalized and vitalized 
expression of that finest characteristic of the Jew—his 
religious genius. As dispersion among the nations of the 
earth has evoked this self-expression of the Jew, so it has 
brought their stimulating and idealizing influence to the 
world. Let us not confuse their universal spiritual mis¬ 
sion with national or parochial issues. 


203 


THE WANDERER 


WHAT DO YOU BELIEVE WAS 
THE BEGINNING OF THE UNI¬ 
VERSE? 

“Myself when young did eagerly frequent 
Doctor and Saint , and heard great argument 
About it and about; but evermore 

Came out by the same door as in l went.” 

—From Omar Khayyam. 

FRANK SCHLESINGER, Allegheny Observatory, Pitts¬ 
burg, Pa. 

I N a sense it is futile to ask what the beginning of the uni¬ 
verse was or what its end is to be, since such questions 
imply a beginning and an end of time itself, and these we 
can neither conceive nor admit. But it is fair to ask what 
is the earliest condition of the universe that we can picture. 
Countless eons ago, the whole of space was perhaps per¬ 
vaded by a nearly uniform nebula composed of a single sub¬ 
stance or element. Concerning this substance, we know the 
nature of its light (or its spectrum), and this shows it to 
be different from any substance we have thus far found 
on the earth. For the want of a better name it has been 
called nebulium. The least inequality or disturbance in this 
vast nebula would give rise to centers of gravitation and 
would generate motion, heat and other forms of energy. 
These in turn would cause changes in the minute structure 
of the nebula and now hydrogen, helium, and other grosser 
elements would evolve out of nebulium. As eons roll on 
after eons, the first timid motions will have grown into vast 
whirlpools and then we should have those countless centers 
of condensation (of which many examples can still be seen 
in our telescopes and on our photographic plates) that 

204 


THE WANDERER 


we call spiral nebulae. But we are still at the very begin¬ 
ning of things and millions of years must still elapse before 
we get the other forms of nebulae that our telescopes re¬ 
veal, and countless more before, from these, we get such 
bodies as the sun and such grains of dust as our earth. 

G. B. HILL. 

A beginning is beyond comprehension of the human 
mind. 

There is nothing outside or apart from the God—divine 
principle or intelligence, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipres¬ 
ent, without beginning and without end. 

If by the word “universe” is meant the solar system 
of which this planet is a part, then since God is all in all, 
eternal, ever-present and all-powerful, there can be but one 
conclusion, that the physical universe is simply an expres¬ 
sion or manifestation of the infinite intelligence—divine 
principle, God, good. 

O. E. JENNINGS. 

The (Question as to the origin of the universe is one 
that most of us are inclined to place in the same list 
with such questions as those relating to the beginning of 
time and to unlimited space and eventually probably most of 
us give it up as being beyond human power to answer. 
However, during the last 50 or 60 years, with the naturalists 
in the lead, much has been learned concerning the trend 
of events since the beginning and this is bringing us closer 
to the beginning itself. We know that the different kinds 
of animals and plants were not made once and for all time 
just as they now are, but that from simple beginnings their 
progress has been and still is ever upward and downward. 
The astronomers and geologists can show us almost a com¬ 
plete series from the thinnest nebular gases to a solar 
system with a planet such as ours. 

Recently we have seen the supposedly sound theory of 
205 


THE WANDERER 

the atom completely shattered and we now realize that 
the atom is almost a universe in itself and that some of our 
chemical elements, such as lead, are not stable things, but 
that their character is changing even now. Even the gap 
between inanimate chemical substances and living organic 
substances of the simpler types has been greatly narrowed 
in the last few years by the chemists and physicists. To 
the thinker this can but suggest, and new discoveries are 
continually giving more force to the ideas, that there has 
been a marvelous and long drawn out building-up or de¬ 
velopment first into the atom, then the molecule, and so 
on to the more complex inorganic and organic things of 
which the universe is now composed. 

H. LEIGHTON, Professor of Economic Geology, Univer¬ 
sity of Pittsburg. 

To state a belief as to the origin of the universe would 
be equivalent to a discussion concerning the origin of mat¬ 
ter, and that seems a question beyond the grasp of human 
intelligence. However, the origin of our solar system and 
our planet is within our power to understand, and I be¬ 
lieve the careful studies of our astronomers, geologists, 
physicists and other scientists are fast bringing to us a 
clear conception of the earth’s beginnings. From an an¬ 
cestral sun were cast off whirling particles of matter called 
planetesimals; from their ingathering the solid globe was 
built up; upon it life arose from lifeless inorganic matter; 
and from life in its low forms, through a gradual evolution, 
arose the culminating figure, man, to possess a soul and a 
conscience, and to rule over all. 

The whole scheme, I believe, was conceived and car¬ 
ried out by an all-wise Creator, establishing and working 
through natural laws through hundreds of millions of years. 
To my mind the plan is more miraculous and more inspiring 
than the older ideas regarding the Creation, and should 

206 


THE WANDERER 


intensify our belief in our God and instill in us a deeper 
appreciation of our responsible place in the scheme of life. 

REV. W. F. CONNER. 

There are at least three suggested opinions concerning 
the beginning of the universe. 

It began by chance, or by the purposive creation of an 
intelligent God, or it has no beginning but is eternal. There 
are included in the universe not only things material, phys¬ 
ical, but at least on our own world, living, intelligent be¬ 
ings. As to the first, I cannot believe that I can think, and 
love, and will, but that no intelligent mind planned the 
process by which, starting with primeval fire mist, I have 
now arrived at this stage. Nor can I believe that the be¬ 
ginning of the fire mist was a wholly unpurposed happening, 
a freak of chance. 

The second and third are not mutually exclusive. They 
may both be true. I believe they are both true. An intelli¬ 
gent God may be the source, the beginning, of the universe, 
yet the universe may be without beginning in time, since 
both God and the universe are eternal. 

A ray of light owes its being to the sun; the sun created 
it. If it were proved that there never was a time when that 
ray of light had not existed it would still owe its origin to 
the sun. 

The universe began because the infinite intelligence etern¬ 
ally needed a body for his expression—I am a spirit, I have 
a body, my spirit struggles to express itself through my 
body. God the personal spirit is from eternity struggling to 
express Himself; the evolving of life to higher forms is the 
result of that struggle. 

GEORGE H. LEPPER. 

An intelligent idea as to the origin of our planetary 
scheme can be gained only by first fathoming the motive 
power and the mechanical principles under which it operates 

207 


THE WANDERER 


and then reasoning backward along the chain of cause and 
effect as far as we can go. First, the cumulative attraction 
of the stars; second, the equilibration of planetary groups 
as unit masses, and third, the natural explosibility of all 
substances whatsoever under excessive pressures. 

First—It goes without saying that if gravitation be indeed 
universal, as Newton surmised, it certainly cannot be 
logically construed as intrasystemal only, as astronomers 
have heretofore supposed, but as intersystemal as well. 
Hence it follows that, inasmuch as our system is being 
pulled this way and that by all the stars at once, it must 
inevitably tend in that direction in which it is being drawn 
hardest. 

Second—The next inquiry to arise is this: How would 
a group of bodies, such as compose this system of ours, 
behave if suddenly created and let fall as described; would 
it obey any law at all, and if so, what law? Why might 
it not obey the regular law of equilibrium and seek its low¬ 
est common center of gravity? May it not, indeed, be pos¬ 
sible that the gyrations of the planets around the sun and of 
the satellites around their primaries are neither more nor 
less than an ensemble effort at balancing ? 

Third—It is plain that this constant falling together 
of the stars, if not in some way effectually counteracted, 
must ages ago have brought the universe to grief. But 
sage nature foresaw the danger of this and so made matter 
constitutionally explosive—under varying degrees of pres¬ 
sure. 

We are now prepared to answer the Wanderer’s query. 
I am of the opinion that our sun, being a relatively small 
star, lacks sufficient self-compressional power to detonate 
his more refractory components and that therefore his max¬ 
imal explosions give birth to comparatively small nebulae," 
without seriously reducing him; also that these nebulae 
(which recur at intervals of probably a thousand centuries), 
are between times swept up by the planets as they continue 
208 


THE WANDERER 


their rounds in pursuit of their systemal equilibrium. Our 
earth did not, like Minerva, spring forth full grown, but 
was originally a small nucleus, perhaps a comet, and like 
our northern trees has increased to her present girth by 
adding periodically new layers to her surface. 


AT WHAT AGE IS A MAN MOST 
EFFICIENT? 

“Love of mankind—there lies the magic solvent for all 
the evils of an old f embattled world . But there are still 
some youths at seventy , not many , but still some; and 
yoti yourself at sixty may have the love of youth so 
clearly in your heart that you can never cross the line 
of Age ” 

From The Nation. 

WILLIAM GIBSON, Superintendent, Westmoreland 
County Courthouse, Greensburg. 

A MAN is most efficient at whatever age he can hold his 
job to the satisfaction of his employer, the public, 
his family and himself. 

PROF. H. M. FERREN. 

He is certainly not most efficient during the years of in¬ 
fancy, boyhood and dotage. These are the blank leaves 
with which human lives, like books, begin and end. The 
comparison might be carried even a little farther. In 
hardly any of the world’s best books can we pick out a 
single chapter and designate it as better than what follows 
or precedes. Each chapter may excel the rest in its own 
particular way. 

Why should a perfect exordium require less efficiency 
209 


THE WANDERER 

than a perfect climax or peroration? In the producing 
season every month has fruits of its own. We can enjoy 
them all irrespective of their time of ripening. True, the 
early cherry is usually more abundant than the frost-bitten 
persimmon, but the latter’s flavor compensates for its 
scarcity. 

While efficiency is in a way the result of assiduous prac¬ 
tice, it does not necessarily culminate in a particular de¬ 
cade, lustrum or year. Throughout several scores of years 
the degree of efficiency may remain constant. A crescendo 
would rather be found in its manifestations than in effi¬ 
ciency itself. The higher and nobler the task, the fewer 
the visible results. 

The mountain summit is naturally less bulky than the 
base, though there could be no mountain without either. 
“Age strikes with experienced hand, though the fire in the 
forge is low.” While youth has the advantage of an unim¬ 
paired vitality, age possesses the lever of experience and, 
standing on the summit of life, can accomplish with ease 
through the agency of others what hitherto seemed pos¬ 
sible only for the indefatigable zeal of youth. 

WALLACE WINTER. 

If a man is ever to be efficient in his life, he will be effi¬ 
cient at the close of his boyhood—with the coming of his 
maturity—just as much as at any later time. Efficiency is 
the result of early training He may become more dexter¬ 
ous along certain lines; his knowledge may increase with 
experience; he may gain greater confidence and become 
more discreet as the years pass. But if he is ever to be 
efficient in his career, you will find him so when his child¬ 
hood ends. 

If you are speaking of degrees of efficiency, it all de¬ 
pends upon the man. There is no particular age when a 
man becomes efficient. I have seen men of 25, 35, 45, 55, 

210 


THE WANDERER 


and so on, who were inefficient. And they had always 
been inefficient. There was something lacking in their funda¬ 
mental make-up, or their early training had been all wrong. 
And they never could, and never did, overcome their ineffi¬ 
ciency. 

On the other hand, I have seen efficient men of the same 
ages, and they had always been efficient. At the age of 18, 
or 20, or 22, whenever their maturity arrived, they were 
bright, capable workers, who did things right and tried 
to do their best. And so they continued. Their knowledge 
increased, of course, and when old age comes they will still 
be efficient, just as many an aged man who is pointed out 
to-day as a model of capability, was a bright, efficient youth 
years ago. You can’t set an age for efficiency. You’ve 
got to look to the man. 

CRAFT GRAM. 

The tragedy of the human race is: It is dominated by 
old people. Halos have been placed upon their noble brows. 
They are veritable fountains of wisdom. Intellectuality 
oozes from them. The young have been psychologized into 
believing that old folks are very wise, and are foolish 
enough to accept the old at their own valuation. 

Old people cause wars, the young fight them. This 
gives the old' the opportunity of fighting vicariously. It 
would be funny, if we were not discussing tragedy, to listen 
to the old folks talk of how proud they are to give up for 
their country—their own lives? Oh no! They are refer¬ 
ring to the lives of their sons. I am sure that the bottom of 
the bottomless pits of hell have been reserved for this 
tribe, and it numbers legions. The old chaps shout: “We 
are willing to fight to the finish”—even if they have to 
give up their sons’ lives. But isn’t it glorious that the young 
men are commencing to “get wise” to the old? The young 
are questioning the wisdom of the aged, and glory be, the 
earth keeps right along rotating on its axis. 

211 


THE WANDERER 


Mrs. Victor Rickard, English writer, has written a book 
with the clever title, “The Fire of Green Boughs.” Mrs. 
Rickard tells of the wreck of a German submarine off the 
Irish coast. A young officer was swept ashore, and he lived 
for a short time. He says: “Our lives will perish and 
sooner or later every man of the young navy will go down, 
as I have seen others drown. Yet they drive us on. They 
will not let us rest. It is so dark, and I can hear nothing 
but the noise of the waves and the voices of drowning men. 
They are all ydhng. See, the dead drift by us, and every 
face is the face of a boy. The old men are safe, shouting 
for victory, far inland—out of the storm.” 

Mr. Wilson proudly referred to the fact that the Big 
Five are all old men, skilled in diplomacy, not a young man 
among them. And look at the mess the world is in as a 
result of the work of these old men. Mr. Wilson pro¬ 
claimed his 14 points, Germany agreed to an armistice based 
on the 14 points, and the old diplomats treated the 14 
points as huge jokes. Yet, Mr. Wilson tells us that the 
peace treaty practically conforms with the 14 points. Mr. 
Wilson was “An Innocent Abroad.” And he is an old 
man. 

In this morning’s Dispatch, issue of October 13, 1919, I 
read accounts of the terrible suffering of the Jews. I also 
read a headline, page four, “17,000 Dying Daily.” And this 
is a result of war caused by old men. The old men who 
dominated the peace council. Never in all the history of 
the world has there been such an atrocity as that of the 
old men who dominated the peace council. They are old 
men. These four words cover volumes. Our youn% men 
can feel elated that Mr. Wilson could boast, “not a young 
man among them.” 


212 


THE WANDERER 


WHAT VALUABLE TRAITS HAVE 
OUR ALIENS GIVEN TOWARD 
FORMING AMERICAN CHAR¬ 
ACTER? 


“Character is the diamond that scratches every other 
stone” 


—Bartol. 


FRANK HARRIS, Editor, Pearson’s Magazine. 


B EFORE attempting to answer your question, it is neces¬ 
sary to determine, if possible, “What is American 
Character ?” 

There is nothing more difficult to qualify than national 
characteristics, even the characteristics of an individual 
are not easy to determine. 

Rodin once declared to me in a pet that even intelligent 
men, men of character and intellect, when they had their 
busts modeled, wanted to be made handsome, not energetic; 
not strong, no, regular features, if you please, Grecian x 
features if possible, without a trace of individuality even— 
idiots! 

And so nations want to be considered brave, virtuous and 
unselfish. 

President Wilson the other day told the French that 
Americans did not worship the dollar, were not sordid and 
self-seeking, but lovers of righteousness and nobly unselfish. 

Brave Americans are. I have always called them the 
greatest fighting Nation on earth. I think their courage 
due in part to the constant influx of young adventurous 
people from the different European countries. 

But it would be easy to prove, I think, that they prize 
money above all worldly or other worldly possessions; there 

213 


THE WANDERER 

is here no other standard of value; money can be made here 
more easily than in other countries, and therefore tempts 
more. 

America is rather a continent than a country, and a very 
rich one, with intoxicating possibilities for the greedy. 

I have exceeded your space limit without even begin¬ 
ning to answer your question. Forgive me. 

W. W. SIBRAY, United States Civil Service Commission, 

Pittsburg. 

We are a truly cosmopolitan people. Having inherited 
brain and brawn from our European ancestors, we have 
likewise developed, nurtured and molded our characters by 
both precept and example. 

Speaking in general terms, I should say that we owe 
our supremacy, our frugality and our love of the big busi¬ 
ness to the English, while to Ireland and the Irish race 
we must give credit for our wit and humor and our quick 
repartee which gives us first rank as after-dinner speakers. 
To our Scottish friends we owe our Yankee shrewdness 
and our sturdy character of iron which mean “do or die” 
when we know we are in the right. It is not exactly a 
popular thought at this time, but we must give credit to 
the Germans for our patience, diligence and love of research 
which has long since placed us among the scientific thinkers 
of the world. To the Dutch, the Swiss and the Scandina¬ 
vians we are indebted, to some extent, for our staid so¬ 
briety, our fidelity and our love of home and domestic 
happiness, while through France and the French comes 
the love of art, of fashion and the beautiful. To the 
Italian and the Russian may be given credit, to some extent, 
for our love of music. And last, we should not forget that 
through our Spanish blood we have become gay, gallant and 
courtly, and have developed an ardent love of romance. 

We are a truly cosmopolitan people. 

214 


THE WANDERER 


IRWIN P. MOORE. 

It is most natural when one is asked to write on such 
a subject to think primarily of the alien country from which 
one’s ancestors have sprung. We know the English have 
given us diplomacy and aggressiveness; the Scandinavians 
romanticism; the Germans, patience, and the Slavonic peo¬ 
ples, mysticism; but it is not of these that I am thinking. 
I am thinking of what the Irish people have given toward 
the forming of American character. 

Perhaps the main thing that they have given us is tem¬ 
perament-—a temperament that is not always monotonously 
the same. This temperment has made it possible for us 
to rise to the heights and sink to the depths in the space 
of a half of an hour; they have given us the most of our 
sense of humor as well as much of our melancholy; they 
have given us much of our ability to pursue a fight to the 
end, and they have given us much of our ability to write, for 
it was George Moore who said that the only great litera¬ 
ture of the British Empire during the twentieth century 
has come out of the filth of Southern Ireland. Taking it 
all in all, the American would be a very dull being without 
the characteristics which the Irishman, both from the 
north and from the south of Ireland, have given and have 
melted in the pot which has made up the great American 
character. 

PROF. HERBERT ADOLPHUS MILLER. 

They bring an experience in the hatred of tyranny that 
made them one of our last assets during the war. They 
bring a variety of religious institutions which has resulted 
from the different struggles for spiritual realization. They 
bring a knowledge of another language than English, which, 
if conserved, would give us millions of bi-lingual people 
at almost no cost. They identify America with the prob- 

2iS 


THE WANDERER 

lems of Europe, whether we will or not and thus hasten 
the world society. Each nationality brings a distinct his¬ 
tory, distinct art, distinct customs which if adapted to 
American life will make our character deeper and richer. 

G. BERNSTEIN. 

Nobody can deny the importance of the foreigner for 
American industry. You find the foreigner in the mills 
and workshops of almost every industrial town, you find him 
laying out the roads, cutting through tunnels, mining vari¬ 
ous minerals, and loading and unloading every imaginable 
vehicle of freight. 

It is true, however, that coming from the industrially 
backward countries and possessing no special mechanical 
skill the foreigner had to become the laborer, the common 
worker. 

But in the last two or three decades, especially since the 
Russian Revolution in 1905, a new element of foreigners 
appeared in these United States of America. This was 
the self-conscious fighter for a better life, the rebel that 
left his mother land, not so much for economic as for 
political reasons. The traditional American freedom is 
what mostly attracted him to the American shores. 

This alien bore himself with dignity and did not allow 
anybody to look upon him as an inferior. So it happened 
that, due to the foreigner, the American acquired some 
aristocratic notions, and due to the foreigner he began to 
discard these very notions. Moreover, the American realized 
that the foreigner can teach him many valuable things, 
especially the lesson of struggling for a better life. 


216 


THE WANDERER 


HAS CHRISTIANITY ABOLISHED 
THE FEAR OF DEATH? 


An Old Man that had traveled a long way with a huge 
bundle of sticks , found himself so weary that he cast it 
down, and called upon Death to deliver him from his 
most miserable existence. Death came straightaway at 
his call, and asked him what he wanted. “Pray, good 
sir ” says he, “do me but the favor to help me up with 
my burden again." 

—Aesop’s Fables, 

REV. THEODORE M. HOFMEISTER, B. D., First 
Congregational Church, Pittsburg. 


/CHRISTIANITY will influence only those who have 
made the confession of their acceptance of the Chris¬ 
tian religion. Influence, in the sense of gripping their life 
to the extent of regenerating it. In other words, applied 
Christianity, better known as the Christian faith, will remove 
the scales from our eyes and give a spiritual vision. A vision 
that lifts one out of the natural into the realm of the 
spiritual. This leads us into that experience of the “new 
birth,” as taught by our Lord. 

The Christian accepts the word of God at face value, 
and where the scriptures speak, He speaks, and where they 
are silent, He is silent. Stephen, the first martyr, cried 
with a loud voice, “Lord, lay not this sin to their charge.” 
His desire was that God would forgive his murderers. He 
had not fear of death. 

If we are apostles of the Christ, we realize our Savior 
was victor over death and the grave. Jesus said, “I am the 
resurrection and the life,” etc. To the Christian the fear 
of death is abolished, because our faith is in Jesus. 

217 


THE WANDERER 
ELIZA MOWRY BLIVEN. 

Animals seek food, water and shelter to sustain life. 
They fight or flee from danger. Each kind has evolved 
means for self-protection. Their young inherit their fears 
and methods for safety. 

Mankind has like fears, and invents numberless protec- 
tives from enemies, harm, pain, death. While healthy, en¬ 
joying life, all want to live. When sick, a doctor is called. 
All fear death. When diseased past cure, or terribly 
troubled, some want to die, to stop suffering. If sure of 
living in heaven after death, Christianity may abolish 
their fear of death. 

Soldiers of all times, races, savages, civilized, all religions, 
no religions, rush to battle. What abolished their fear of 
death? Not Christianity. Cheered by rulers, priests, ora¬ 
tors, they faced death to kill enemies, or gain plunder. So 
animals fight and die—bulls, cats, roosters. 

Orthodox Christianity increases fear of death. They 
teach, all must believe, worship and support churches, or 
suffer eternity in hell. It makes thousands of timid women 
and children afraid all through life. They try to pray, 
believe and love God. Prayers not answered; they fear 
God cares not for them: fearing hell, devil and God, they 
lose the enjoyment of life. Fearing death and hell, the 
people support preaching as passport to heaven. 

World-wide banding together of all people to promote 
peace, justice, intelligence and general welfare, is coming. 
It will abolish religious beliefs and fears; but fear of death 
as ending life-enjoyments will remain. 

HILDA ROSE. 

My mother was a fanatic on religion, and I have suffered 
for it the greater part of my life. I was an unusually 
frail child and she never expected to rear me, so she 

218 


THE .WANDERER 

preached at me and prayed for me every day to prepare 
me for the life beyond. 

Are you ready to meet your Savior? Do you love 
Jesus? Have you been born again? Do you fear God? 
These are some of the things that haunt my dreams at night 
even yet, and I wake frightened and trembling, until reason 
comes to my aid. 

Hoping the climate would benefit me, I went West a few 
years ago. Here I married a man much older than I, and, 
strange to say, the first agnostic I had ever met. At first 
his “Atheism,” as I called it, worried me exceedingly. 
Yet, when the fear of death rushed over me I fled to his 
arms and he gently told me over and over how the flowers 
died when the frost came and the bright butterflies folded 
their lovely wings and fell asleep among the brown leaves. 
So, too, we would sleep some day, perchance never to wake 
again. In this way he took away my fear of death, which 
in time will cease to bother my dreams also. 

Most of the Christians I have met are afraid to die, and 
their life is spent in preparing for the next world. When 
they become fanatics they often look on death as a release. 
I never went that far. It was fear of the “Judgment 
Day” that poisoned my daily life and my dreams at night. 
Now that this dread is gone I enjoy each day that comes, 
and I am teaching my two little girls and baby boy how 
beautiful is the world we live in. 

We see death in some form here on the ranch every day. 
Where there is so much life there is also much dying. 
Birds, mice, squirrels and cats interest the children most, 
and they have a row of graves in the back yard. 

Old Queen died this fall. The children went along with 
“Daddy” to bury her. “We’ll put her down deep,” said 
“Daddy,” “she was a good horse.” Baby asked, “Why?” 

“Because we don’t want the coyotes to dig her up. She 
was a good puller. If she had been balky, we’d let the 
coyotes have her.” 


219 


THE WANDERER 


So they buried her deep, and I believe some day I, too, 
shall rest as peacefully as that old and faithful horse. 

CHARLES H. LOWELL. 

A true Christian never fears death. When in full posses¬ 
sion of the faith, he must feel that there is every reason 
to rejoice rather than to be filled with fear when death 
approaches. This is particularly true in cases where the 
Christian has not been blessed with this world’s goods, and 
still more so if he has suffered absolute poverty, for he 
knows that he is going to the land of plenty, where there 
will be no struggle for existence, and where equality reigns. 

Death, which, of course, means a life in Heaven to the 
righteous and the faithful, brings all deserving men to the 
same plane; the Rockefellers, the Rothschilds (I believe the 
Jews will also go to Heaven if they have been good), the 
kings of England, the Socialists (I believe Karl Marx and 
Karl Liebknecht will have a chance), the Ingersoils, and 
the poorest wretches will all be on a common level. 

Death should have no terror for any one, for it is so 
easy to believe and to be saved, and I think death should be 
welcomed rather than be dreaded, for it is a relief from 
earthly struggle, misery and disease, to a glorious place of 
eternal happiness. 

MAE A. ELLEARD. 

Christianity brings to the world the most joyful event 
in its history. It has revolutionized the current of life 
and given joy for gloom and happiness for sorrow. By 
it death has been robbed of its terrors, and life has become 
happier and more hopeful. 

Fear belongs to the world of flesh. A thousand anxieties 
and dreads cross our path every day. We are kept in 
bondage to fear of one thing or another all our lives. 
Christianity is the contrast to this. It brings peace and joy, 
a foretaste of the heaven to which we are going. There 

220 


THE WANDERER 


is nothing to fear, but perfect confidence and peace as 
deep flowing and serene as the river of life itself. 

Life brings many changes and through them all one fact 
alone is sure. Death is the only event that can be absolutely 
counted on, towards which we are all hastening. A life 
well lived—lived in service for others, devotion to a prin¬ 
ciple—is the best preparation for death. 

Life at best is short. This is the testimony of those 
who have reached the end. Every day, every hour, is to be 
utilized, and from constant habit of right-living there come 
added strength and courage. Serve God faithfully in the 
every-day life and when the emergency comes, death or 
some other ill, He will not fail to send a special baptism of 
grace and strength. 

ANTHONY MARTINI. 

The strongest inherent instinct in all animals is self- 
preservation—hence the fear of death. People who com¬ 
mit suicide are generally crazy, or in many instances, ab¬ 
sorbed by the false ideas of a hereafter as'taught by Chris¬ 
tianity, the belief in which is in itself an evidence of 
weakness. 

The fear of the mysteries that lie beyond life is a 
fear that cannot be overcome. The Christian and the 
Freethinker may each claim that death has no sting, no- 
terror for them, yet it has often been proved that this is 
an affectation by the dying delinquent Christian’s repent¬ 
ance, or by the infidel’s recantation when he is about to 
gasp his last. 

All living things fear to die. We may shout our bravery 
from house-tops, or we may pose as one who is not even 
curious about the crossing of the river Styx, but when one 
sees death creeping nearer—where is the man, Christian or 
unbeliever, who can truthfully say he has no fear of 
death ? 


221 


THE WANDERER 


SHOULD HOLLAND GIVE UP THE 
KAISER? 

“The luckless Prince Aladdin 
Has now no lamp, alas! 

He feels beneath his mantle 
Where heretofore it was . 

His ring he seeks amain, too, 

And finds it not again, too, 

For no ring he has ” 

—From the Swedish of Gustaf Froding. 

FRANK HARRIS, Editor, Pearson’s Magazine. 

I THINK the Kaiser guilty of having gone off at half-cock 
in declaring war on Russia, and a little later on France, 
when he should have let them declare war on him and so 
won the opinion of the neutral nations. But I do not 
think he should be tried for such piece of folly which has 
resulted so tragically for himself and the German people, 
and I certainly think Holland 'would be ill advised to give 
him up. 

S. T. LODGE. 

Holland will have no choice about it. Holland must give 
up the Kaiser. The arch-criminal of the ages will not go 
unpunished. 

The man who conceived the most hellish war in all history 
ought to be hanged “higher than Haman,” to use a favorite 
phrase of our noble President. Not until this has been done 
will victory be really attained. Never again shall any one 
feel that he can with impunity oppose the evil ambitions of 
a cruel soul to the peaceful pursuits of an unsuspecting 
world and get away with it. 

Holland must give up the Kaiser, and the Allies will stand 
222 


THE WANDERER 


no nonsense about the right of asylum or other subter¬ 
fuges of that sort. If Holland attempts trickery, evasion 
or delay, the British Navy is handy. In view of the fact 
that there is a serious question as to whether one or two 
Dutch provinces should not be given to suffering Belgium, 
Holland had better be good. 

The way of the transgressor is hard, and Holland’s Queen 
should hesitate to put herself on a par with the despot who 
has taken refuge within her domain to prepare for a fresh 
spring at the throat of civilization. Holland must—and 
Holland will. 


FREDERICK FRANKLIN SCHRADER. 

Holland should not give up the Kaiser because: 

First—A person charged with a political offense is not 
subject to extradition among nations which have outgrown 
savagery. It would be reversion to paganism, like that of 
Rome, when the conqueror exhibited his fallen foe dragged 
in chains behind the victor’s triumphal car in public proces¬ 
sion. 

Second—It would be against the century-old traditions 
of Holland and stamp her, who preserved the spirit of lib¬ 
erty when, once before, Europe was plunged in political bar¬ 
barism, with the odium of violating the sacred law of 
asylum, which is respected even by the Arabs. 

Third—And, finally, the verdict would have to be “guilty,” 
as otherwise England and France would have to convict 
themselves. Hence, a fair trial is out of the question. The 
whole process, in which the accusers act as judge, jury, 
prosecutors and witnesses, would be tainted. History would 
never endorse such a verdict and England would only be 
adding to the inglorious record which she made in the case 
of the Maid of Orleans and Napoleon. 


223 


THE WANDERER 


DR. MICHAEL SINGER, Editor, The New Times, 
Chicago. 

I answer, No; because I am looking into another ques¬ 
tion : Who is demanding his extradition ? 

This question decides the answer. If there would be an 
inclination to entrust the investigation of the war guilt to 
a neutral tribunal at a neutral place, I would welcome the 
extradition of the Kaiser for historical reasons, if for noth¬ 
ing else. But no man and no group of men have a right to 
claim for themselves the functions of prosecutor, judge, 
and hangman, in the same case, at the same time. 

To the student of occurrences one thing is clear: At the 
conclusion of the peace treaty Mr. Clemenceau rejoiced that 
every Frenchman had been waiting anxiously this moment 
for 49 years. A Nation that acknowledges to have been 
in war-fever for 49 years cannot lay all the blame for war 
horrors on others’ shoulders. 

Mr. Churchill said in 1904: “If German commerce would 
be destroyed to-day every British subject would be twice as 
rich to-morrow.” And David Runciman, member of the 
British Government at the outbreak of the war, exclaimed 
in 1914: “Our chief object is accomplished. German com¬ 
merce is destroyed.” No Nation that contemplates the de¬ 
struction of another can make this other Nation responsible 
for the war. 

And has Italy a right to sit in judgment? Italy that be¬ 
trayed her associates of 40 years for mere territorial gains ? 

In my opinion the war guilt rests, not with the man who 
fired the first shot, but solely with the men who created the 
conditions which made the supreme command of the gun 
inevitable. For this reason I am against the extradition of 
the Kaiser unless those nations try him which succeeded in 
keeping out of the war. 


224 


THE WANDERER 


G. T. GORDON. 

England has but to sneeze mildly, say she wants the Kaiser 
and poor Holland would “cough up/’ for what else could 
she do ? International law ? There is no such thing except 
under England’s interpretation and what England wants to 
interpret she interprets. 

But by all that is right Holland should give up the Kaiser 
and he should be tried by a real international court, with 
at least one representative from every nation on the globe. 
We have heard so much of the crimes committed by the 
Kaiser and so much about trying him that it is about time 
that it should be done. Perhaps Lord Grey is afraid of 
“Bear not false witness against thy neighbor lest he tell 
the truth about thee and that might be worse.” 

It is my candid opinion some of the Allies are really afraid 
to try the Kaiser. Propaganda, and testimony before a real 
court of justice are two different things. By propaganda 
you can incense a people into hatred and have them foolishly 
expend $26,000,000,000, but a court of justice, not pre¬ 
viously “packed,” has to interpret facts, not manufactured 
stuff of one side only, and compare with facts submitted by 
the defense as well. If the Allies do not try the Kaiser 
after all the fuss they have made about trying him, it will 
show conscious weakness on their part. 

Out of duty to the world at large—the common people of 
all countries involved in the war who sacrificed loved ones 
and suffered most—it is justly due that the trial of the 
Kaiser be forthcoming to determine his guilt or innocence. 
Then in future people who elect a representative on the 
platform of “He kept us out of war” may not be falsely 
dealt with and plunged into war—the sacrifice of scores of 
thousands of lives and a debt of $26,000,000,000 without 
taking into consideration the enormous loss to industries 
prevented from doing their regular work by war regulations. 

225 


THE WANDERER 


JEROME LERNER. 

By all means, Yes. Not only should he be given up, but 
supplied with funds to provide lawyers to show why he 
should not be beheaded. 

In the eyes of civilized people he is guilty of crimes 
which violated civilized warfare, and nothing could warn 
future Kaisers better how to conduct future wars than the 
rope around the neck. 

Of course, there are many other people guilty of similar 
crimes, but they happen to be the victors, and to the victor 
belongs the spoils, but their opportunity will come next when 
the common people awaken to realization of what fools they 
were to allow themselves to be led to slaughter. But the 
Kaiser is our subject at present. 

I would go a step further and say if Holland is so perti¬ 
nent as not to give him up, a. little army work would not be 
bad to teach a little democracy, for they surely behaved 
with bad manners during the war. The idea of raising a cry 
when we took their ships away, as though they need any 
ships. 

But I have a suspicion that some big international lawyer, 
by the time everything is ready to give the Kaiser up, will 
prove that white is black and that, according to international 
law, Section 1,000,000, Article XXIII, states definitely the 
Kaiser is not only not guilty, but should be decorated with a 
Victoria Cross, a distinguished service medal for the an¬ 
noyance, and be allowed to resume the throne. 

Then everything will be as of old and the new year will 
be started right. The Kaiser will be urged to form a new 
army to start a little offensive against the Russians, the Bol- 
sheviki will be eaten alive and democracy will triumph, this 
time without the Czar. 

HENRY L. MENCKEN, Editor, Smart Set , New York. 

A good solution of this problem would be to turn Holland 
over to the Kaiser. 


226 


THE WANDERER 


“CHRISTIANITY HASN’T FAILED, 
IT HAS NEVER BEEN TRIED.” 
WHAT HAVE WE HAD? 

The following question was sent to The Wanderer in 
response to an advertisement of the World's Christian 
Citizenship Conference, which read thus: “Suppose 
we try Christianity? Science , sociology , strikes , in¬ 
junctions, legislation , force—and about everything else 
has failed to bring in the reign of peace and righteous¬ 
ness. Christianity hasn't failed . It has never been 
tried ” 

REV. E. M. McFADDEN. 

C HRISTIANITY has not failed! Christianity has 
never been tried V' What has been tried ? 

This query relates to an advertisement dealing with a 
World's Christian Citizenship Conference. A conference 
relating to national problems, not individual. The adver¬ 
tisement is on the face of it too sweeping. It requires quali¬ 
fication. Individually Christianity has been tried, and it has 
never failed to meet the needs of the individual. But no 
Nation in all the earth has fully accepted the spirit of Christ 
as its criterion. 

There is not a single Nation in the world which has in its 
Constitution a recognition of Jesus Christ as Supreme 
Ruler. In our own Constitution it is “We, the people." The 
very name of God is left out. England and America as na¬ 
tions have many excellent Christian features, and the spirit 
of Christ actuated both nations to go to the rescue of dis¬ 
tressed Belgium, and fight against the Central Powers. 
These powers led by Germany knew nothing of the Christ 
spirit. The old German god Wotan was their deity. 

Not for conquest, but to secure lasting peace did we fight. 
227 


THE WANDERER 


When Christianity is truly put to the test it will not fail. 
All disputes as between capital and labor, between Nation 
and Nation will cease when the Christ spirit possesses men 
and nations. Let us 

“Bring forth the royal diadem and crown Him Lord of all.” 

DR. THOMAS CAMPBELL. 

“Christianity hasn’t failed. It has never been tried.” 
(World’s Christian Citizenship advertisement.) This ad¬ 
vertisement may be true to-day, but in the years to come 
there will be an entirely different state of affairs—for I am 
of the opinion that if the conference continues their work 
with the zeal with which they have started out, they will 
in time Christianize the entire world. And may God speed 
them in the great work. 

MARSHALL J. GAUVIN. 

The claim that “Christianity has never been tried” is itself 
a sufficient acknowledgment that Christianity has failed. 
Let us appeal to logic. Christianity is a Divine religion or it 
is not. There is no other alternative. 

If it is Divine, it must have been acted during the many 
centuries of its history as a controlling force, spurring the 
human mind and heart to action—it must have been tried in 
the world’s affairs. To say that it has not been tried is to 
acknowledge at once that it is not Divine. But if Chris¬ 
tianity is not Divine, it is not true, and therefore its falsity 
fully explains its failure. 

Christianity is neither the Sermon on the Mount nor the 
life of Christ; it is a system of beliefs and practices cham¬ 
pioned by an ecclesiastical organization that, for nearly 2,000 
years, has largely swayed the destinies of mankind. No 
sane man can say that it has not been tried. 

If Christianity has never been tried, why have the ages 
228 


THE WANDERER 


resounded with prayer and preaching, with bell-ringing and 
Bible-reading, with the ejaculations of saints and the groans 
of martyrs, with all the pious and frightful experiences of 
an intense missionary zeal ? Are the millions who still pro¬ 
fess the Christian name insincere ? Are they not trying to 
try their religion ? 

Yes, Christianity has been tried, and as a social force it 
has certainly failed! It has failed because, in essence, it is 
a matter of belief that has no practical application to the 
affairs of life. And it will continue to fail until rational 
intelligence has outgrown its superstition and supplanted 
it with the truths of nature and of life. 

V. J. MARION. 

I would ask: Was Christianity not tried in the Crusades, 
those wars in which Christians, in their desire to teach the 
heathen the love and the mercy of Christ, slew thousands of 
innocent women and babes ? 

Was not Christianity tried in the Inquisition of Spain, that 
institution of fiendish torture in which human beings were 
agonized almost beyond human comprehension? 

Was not Christianity tried in the 30 Years’ War, known 
as the Holy War, and in the Reformation ? 

Was Christianity not tried in New England, where those 
severe and devout Christians savagely burned and hanged 
poor, helpless, old women and girls in their Christian zeal to 
rid the world of witches? 

Was Christianity not tried in the Civil War in this coun¬ 
try, when the Christianity of the South upheld and supported 
the Confederacy, declaring that slavery was a Divine insti¬ 
tution ? 

Was Christianity not tried in this late war ? Did not the 
Christian ministers of the Allies proclaim from their pulpits 
that this war was in behalf of Christianity and civilization ? 

Christianity has been tried, especially tried in that period 

229 


THE WANDERER 

known as the Dark Ages, in which Christianity was supreme. 
In that period Christianity determined the forms of govern¬ 
ment, made and unmade kings, controlled nearly every indi¬ 
vidual act of mankind in Christendom. Christianity has 
had a fair trial and has left in the sands of time her foot¬ 
prints which are indelible. 

JOHN SMITH. 

This is an impertinent question to ask from such an au¬ 
gust body of Christian men and women, gathered here from 
various parts of the world for purposes of convincing them¬ 
selves and others that everything is well in this world of 
ours. 

It is incredible that a religion which has been barked and 
preached from every corner and house-top of the world, 
choked down the. throats of savage and heathen tribes at the 
point of bayonets, dipped in blood of murdered and muti¬ 
lated victims; which had full, unopposed sway from any 
source, pityingly begs to be given a chance to try to correct 
the ills of the world. What a glorious admission of failure, 
and yet the preachers and priests admit (to themselves) that 
it has not failed. Failed? Yes, a thousand times. It is, 
and it was throughout the struggle for human emancipation 
from darkness the only force which, like a ballast, dragged 
us back into the dark hole. 

A religion which offers a sort of Nirvana in the other 
world, but on earth asks its victims to accept pity and suf¬ 
fering as a price for future happiness. It teaches humble¬ 
ness and obedience, to negate oneself, to become knaves and 
obedient tools. Christianity has built thousands and thou¬ 
sands of churches where it is hiding behind painted win¬ 
dows, heavy portals and closed front collars. This would 
have been a better world if the teachings of Jesus the car¬ 
penter were to be taken out of the hands of the Pharisees, 
who have surrounded, killed and maimed the soul of His 
teaching. 


230 


THE WANDERER 


JAMES CARD. YOUNGE. 

The advertisement of the World’s Christian Citizenship 
Conference is easily explained. Christianity has never been 
tried in the great broad sense of the word—that the whole 
world should be Christianized, and the movement the Chris¬ 
tian citizenship conference is striving for is fast going in that 
direction. 

A Christian world! How beautiful that would be! 
Wars and strife will cease, and all will try to live the Christ- 
life. It is so commanded in the Scriptures, Matthew xxviii: 
19-20, “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing 
them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the 
Holy Ghost, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever 
I have commanded you.” 

HAMILTON GODSEY. 

We have had Paulianity. The gentleman is perfectly cor¬ 
rect. Christianity has never been tried in any great meas- 
use since the death of Christ. The Apostle Paul, who had 
his own theories about the doctrines and practices of the 
Christian faith and who was a good advertising salesman, 
peddled over Europe a form of religion which he called 
Christianity which laid the foundations for a sect calling 
themselves Christians, practicing a system of ethics and cul¬ 
ture contrary to the teachings of Jesus Christ. 

It is refreshing to hear a confession of this kind from a 
conference of Christian workers. It is exactly in line with 
various Other incidents of the conference. The Christian 
church has been the champion of war, political oppression, 
religious bigotry, industrial thievery and successful “Ameri¬ 
canism.” It caters to wealth and power. It condemns 
every rule of life advocated by Jesus Christ. It worships 
in marble temples the “Son of Man who hath no place to lay 
his head.” It invokes the name of the Savior to justify 

231 


THE WANDERER 

wholesale murder under the name of war. It raises its 
paeans of praise in honor of every dishonest millionaire who 
befouls its house with guttural praise of the Jesus who re¬ 
proached the rich young man. 

That is what is called Christianity. We shall have the 
religion of Jesus Christ when its professors remember 
money does not buy its way into the Kingdom, when the 
peace of Jesus Christ shames the program of violence, when 
the Sermon on the Mount is a guiding light. 

Z. OFLO. 

Lip service, hypocrisy, selfishness and force. How many 
persons, calling themselves Christians, attempt to apply the 
teachings of Jesus to life? Few. The vast majority act 
to the contrary. They crucify Jesus again and again. 

Selfishness prevents Christians from applying the teach¬ 
ings of Jesus. They are obsessed with the idea of possess¬ 
ing things. Jesus condemned riches, but this does not pre¬ 
vent “men of God” from insidiously defending great riches 
by intellectual camouflage. How will these “men of God” 
square things with God? It is difficult to believe they be¬ 
lieve what they preach about immortality. 

Jesus had no place to lay His head. He wore only a one- 
piece garment. He walked from village to village. Many 
of his alleged modern disciples live in beautiful houses, 
waited on by servants, wear fine clothes and loll in limou¬ 
sines. What blasphemy to call these men ministers of 
Jesus! What about St. Francis? Isn’t it fortunate for 
present-day Christians that some great souls happened to be 
Christians ? It gives them something to brag about. 

Why are Christians pleased with exhibitions of force? 
They are ever intent upon making the other fellow conform. 
“We ought to turn machine guns on them,” is a common 
expression. Or, “They ought to take him out and hang 
him.” Or, “They ought to stand them up against a wall 

232 


THE WANDERER 


and shoot them.” A stranger from Mars, hearing Chris¬ 
tians talk for the first time, would conclude that the advo¬ 
cacy of force is a fundamental commandment of the Chris¬ 
tian religion. And yet, Jesus was a pacifist, a non-resistant. 
But when a man of Pittsburg says he would literally follow 
the teachings of Jesus, Christians are astonished. This 
man is a Jew, Allah be praised! Isn't it admirable that he 
should be of the same race as Jesus was? 

Christians bitterly condemn this man. He is slightingly 
referred to as “overpeaceable,” and millions of persons, hav¬ 
ing the audacity to call themselves followers of the “over- 
peaceable” Jesus, applaud. A man, recognized by Chris¬ 
tians as a cultured gentleman, called him an “incendiary 
pacifist,” and referred to him as “it.” All for his belief that 
the non-resistant teachings of Jesus of Nazareth should be 
put into practice. Christians fail to see that if they and all 
men and women followed the example of this Pittsburg 
“radical” there would be no one left to assault women. 
Jesus was a “radical.” “He stirreth up the people.” For 
this He died on the cross. 

“Christianity hasn’t been tried.” True. As I listen to 
Christians preach force I must conclude they think Jesus 
was “kidding.” They can inaugurate a new reform. They 
can stop claiming to be followers of Jesus, when they per¬ 
sist in acting to the contrary. This would eliminate at least 
one great sin, hypocrisy. 

To the Christian who reads this I would say: Don’t be¬ 
come peeved or enraged at what has been written until you 
have searched your heart, searched the Gospels, and com¬ 
pared what you find there with what we have. You will 
find that “what has been tried” is a travesty. Or is it a 
tragedy ? 


233 


iTHE WANDERER 


IS THE PHOTOPLAY CENSOR A 
BENEFIT OR A DETRIMENT? 

“Censure’s to be understood, 

Th’ authentic mark of the elect, 

The public stamp heav’n sets on all thafs great and good, 
Our shallow search and judgment to direct ” 

Dean Swift. 

ROB WAGNER. 

M RS. WAGNER and I often go to the movies and she 
enjoys things that I think are punk, while I howl my 
head off at the jokes she considers only fit for half-wits. 
So you see if we were armed with authority to enforce our 
tastes there wouldn't be any pictures. 

I think the most eloquent testimony that censorship—in 
the way it works out—is merely a tyranny of private opin¬ 
ion was shown in the case of Joan the Woman. That film 
was censored in 32 places, and for 32 different reasons. 

NORMA TALMADGE. 

I am among those who believe the moving picture censor 
is a benefit to the world of moving pictures, that is, if the 
members of the board of censors are chosen from a group 
of people qualified to pass on pictures. By this I mean 
each censor should be an individual who represents not only 
the interest of the public, but of the exhibitor as well. He 
should have just as real qualifications for this job as has the 
actor or the director for his particular line. It seems to 
me the great trouble with many censors is that in their zeal 
for the public good, they are not always fair to the industry. 
The producers and the exhibitors should be just as properly 
represented on the board as the audiences. I believe censors 

234 


THE WANDERER 


valuable in eliminating such scenes as are sometimes put on 
to make profit by lurid titles, and vulgar, suggestive scenes. 
These pictures would give the whole moving picture pro¬ 
fession a “black eye” if not censored, and I have great faith 
in the future of the movies, and favor everything and any¬ 
thing which will help to put it on a plane with the higher 
arts! 

There are two arguments for and against censors. The 
censors, if given too much power, can destroy with a word 
the effort and talent which goes into the making of a scene 
costing thousands of dollars, and although this scene may 
appear immoral to a certain individual, the general public 
may receive the underlying lesson which the producer had in 
mind. After all, it is the public which is the real board of 
censorship. It decides what is good and what is bad, 
through its patronage, but “good” and “bad” are only rela¬ 
tive terms. 

KATHERINE MACDONALD. 

Looking at this from all sides, I would declare I believe 
the photoplay censor to be a benefit to the actor as well as 
to the public. To the actor, because he is the interpreter 
of a wonderful art, and if the content of that art is made 
base he suffers immeasurably from contact with it. He be¬ 
comes a paid entertainer of questionable taste (or worse) 
instead of an artist with a message of beauty. 

But it is the public, the millions of men, women and chil¬ 
dren who go once, twice or three times a week to look at 
motion pictures who would suffer the most if all censorship 
were removed and the unscrupulous producers—for there 
are a few, I regret to say—were permitted to have every¬ 
thing their own way. The photoplay is becoming the great 
educator of the world, it is the picture, the story, the poem 
for untold millions, and they know no other. Dare we hesi¬ 
tate for a moment as to what sort of pictures, stories and 

235 


THE WANDERER 


poems we will offer them? Those who do hesitate stand in 
need of the prod and the whip of the censor. 

But not every man is fit for the position. The censor 
must be wise and good, disinterested and just, broadminded 
and unprejudiced—in short, a paragon among his fellows. 
Where shall we find him? Yet find him we must. 

FLORENCE E. WRENSHALL, Inspector of Pennsyl¬ 
vania State Board of Censors. 

I am going to set forth a few facts in regard to motion 
picture censorship in Pennsylvania., and ask you to form 
your own opinion. 

The State Board of Censors is required under the motion 
picture law to remove portions of and often reconstruct or 
disapprove in its entirety any film which would tend to pro¬ 
duce low moral standards of living or induce crime of any 
kind. Scenes and subtitles have been removed from films 
carrying suggestions of unmoral and immoral acts and 
scenes showing the use of drugs; also arson, assassination 
of executives and officials by bombs, in short instructive 
crime of all kinds, and ridicule of any race or religious sect. 

After a careful perusal of the subjects eliminated, do you 
think censorship of motion pictures is beneficial? 

DAVID HAROLD COLCORD. 

On a certain university campus in the Middle West stands 
a beautiful edifice devoted to the esthetic well-being of some 
6,000 students. The fagade of white marble after the style 
of an ancient Roman temple, the open court flanked by rows 
of columns representing other orders of Grecian architec¬ 
ture and numerous bronze and marble replicas that adorn 
the hallways, constantly remind the student of fine arts as 
they enter here to study, that a work of art is the embodi¬ 
ment in concrete form of the conception of a great artist, 
236 


THE WANDERER 

The columns of marble before the door represent nothing 
more than a wonderful imaginative truth born in the mind 
of Praxiteles. The same is true of every beautiful statue, 
frieze, painting and vase in that building. The same is true 
of every short story, novel, poem or drama, or musical com¬ 
position that has ever been written—they endure as art. 

One day there was a riot in that beautiful edifice. A 
sophomore coming in early to class and unobserved, invested 
the beautiful Venus de Milo in his heavy sweater—and 
nothing more! The Venus that had met the sophomore’s 
bright-eyed classmates for over a year, unobserved and un¬ 
abashed, now stood forth—immodest, immoral and disgust¬ 
ing. 

The production of a photoplay is a fine art in its infancy. 
No other criterion of value is possible for its development 
to a place beside the drama and the other arts. A board of 
censorship protects the public from its attendant evils in the 
same way that the college sophomore protected Venus. 
(The word “sophomore” is well chosen, “a wise fool.”) 
The censor is a detriment—the public is sick of having its 
entertainment selected by social doctors and butchers. 

F. H. ELLIOTT, Executive Secretary, National Associa¬ 
tion of Moving Picture Industry. 

I have not the slightest hesitation in answering with the 
unequivocal statement that he or she is a distinct detriment 
on more than one count, and in no single sense a benefit— 
except to himself or herself and possibly to the politician 
who appoints him. 

My answer is based not only on the theoretical aspects of 
the case, such as the un-American character of the auto¬ 
cratic institution of censorship in general, the check on the 
fundamental liberty, (subject to existing penal statutes), 
called the right of free speech, and the obvious inadequacy 
of one or a few men and women in any community to dic- 

237 


THE WANDERER 

tate what the masses of their fellowmen and women should 
see or hear or read before those masses have a chance to 
judge that very important matter for themselves. 

My reply is based on concrete facts. As executive secre¬ 
tary to the National Association of the Motion Picture In¬ 
dustry I have had opportunity to follow the matter of cam¬ 
paign to graft the alien institution of censorship, an essen¬ 
tially Prussian conception, on the body of our laws. I have 
watched the censor’s work where State and local boards 
have been established, the manner and method of their work, 
and in the light of this practical observation I have become 
convinced that the censor of motion pictures is not only a 
detriment, but if allowed to continue and multiply will prove 
one of the greatest banes to American political, social and 
industrial life. 

The censor is unnecessary because existing laws against 
indecency or immorality or doctrines subversive of good 
citizenship in every case cover the possibility of abuse of 
the screen, and the chief of police or the commissioners of 
licenses in every community have power to keep the motion 
picture as well as the stage and the press, within the limits 
set by these laws. 

The censor is inadequate. Every reputable motion pic¬ 
ture producer is trying his level best to improve the stand¬ 
ard of his pictures in consonance with a gradually improving 
standard in public taste. 

As the New York committee on general welfare stated, 
in its adverse report on a bill for censorship in that city: 
“Your committee is opposed to the creation of a censorship 
because it regards the remedy suggested as far more inimical 
to our institutions than the evils sought to be corrected 
thereby.” 


238 


THE WANDERER 


HAVE YOU EVER LIVED BEFORE? 

Out of the dusk a shadow, 

Then a spark; 

Out of the cloud a silence, 

Then a lark; 

Out of the heart a rapture. 

Then a pain; 

Out of the dead , cold ashes, 

Life again . 

—J. H. Whitty in The Nation. 

LA VERNE F. WHEELER, SR. (Bertuccio Dantino), 
Editor of The Crucible, Seattle, Wash. 

TTAVE I ever lived before? Have I ever really lived? 

I sometimes think I have only begun to learn how to 
live, now that my life is nearly over. 

I have gone through the identical experiences that many 
have written about, of having an undefined sense of partici¬ 
pating in prehistoric wars and desperate struggles for su¬ 
premacy of one kind or another; of having floated away on 
Dreamland bubbles that carried me to unfamiliar scenes; 
of doing heroic deeds that would be utterly impossible; con¬ 
sorting with ancient cave men, and other fantastical things 
that have suggested reincarnation. 

Being an agnostic and depending upon reason, still at 
times I cannot help wondering if reincarnation is not a fact, 
though my reason scoffs at the idea. Things come to my 
mind that I cannot account for on any other hypothesis ex¬ 
cept that I must have lived before, or that psycho-telepathy 
must be considered, so who can give a truthful reply to your 
question ? 

I will not say that I have not lived before, nor that rein¬ 
carnation is impossible, for I do not know. My reason says 
no. And yet—who can prove one way or the other? 

239 


THE WANDERER 


MARY DOVER. 

The desire to live is very strong. The thought that death 
ends all is not flattering. No one likes absolute annihila¬ 
tion. It is good to think that we shall live after we die. 
It follows then that we dream about having lived before. 

It is pleasing to ruminate on the theory that we always 
have been, are now, and shall continue to be. But it hardly 
squares with facts. If reincarnation is true it would seem 
that some spark of intelligence would have remained over 
to shed its influence on our present existence. 

So many people say if they had their lives to live again 
they would act differently in many things. Such a desire in 
a person of average brain strength would live after the dis¬ 
solution we call death. We ought to profit in this life by 
the mistakes made in a former existence but it is not so. 
What wisdom we possess has been thumped into us in this 
consciousness. 

I have not lived before. The material of my body has 
existed for ages. The earth, the air, plant life—all have 
given their share toward making me, and I shall return to 
earth, air and plant life. But when it comes to having had 
a conscious life before—I’ll say “No, I haven’t!” 

CHARLES DEY. 

I may be a dead one now, but I certainly have lived be¬ 
fore. Before a lot of things, including prohibition. Ana¬ 
lyzing my present sympathies it seems probable that I was a 
bird, but I find so many things in common with the rest of 
my fellow men that I logically conclude there was something 
human about my previous life. Either that or there are a 
lot of us old birds floating around. No matter how high I 
flew I was always able to see planes above me, also prices. 

It is easy to tell who has lived before—when, where and 
how much—simply by listening to the extent of their knowl- 

240 


THE WANDERER 


edge of those times and places and noting the manners left 
them by such experiences. Thus do I recognize the reincar¬ 
nated animals when I see them, likewise the shams, sponges 
and other fish. 

Many I have met who have trod paths I never cared to 
take, few whose previous lives aroused envy, once in a blue 
moon I find one who has passed through as many former 
lives in the same manner and time as myself. In him I find 
a friend. 

We talk each other's language, understand alike all that 
has gone before and face the future in the same frame of 
mind. He has faults and vices, so have I. He’s a has been, 
so am I. He owns the sunshine of a park bench and so 
do I. 

CLAUDE BRAGDON. 

There is no “before,” no “after;” time itself is an illusion. 
There is only the eternal now. The angel of the Apocalypse 
declared that “there shall be time no longer.” To conscious¬ 
ness in its free state, past, present and future, exist not in 
sequence, but simultaneously. The spatiality of time—let 
us see if by a simple analogy we cannot get this clear. 

You are sitting in a room and you observe a. cockroach 
emerge from a crack in the baseboard and begin its pil¬ 
grimage to the opposite wall. Become this cockroach in 
imagination; let it represent your personal or lower-dimen¬ 
sional self, related to your real self there in the chair, as 
that is related to its own higher self, or to the Apocalyptic 
angel of four-dimensional space. 

To your cockroach self the boards of the hardwood floor 
will measure not space, but time—the time it takes to tra¬ 
verse them; the rug and its pattern, successively unfolding, 
will be inextricably bound up with the idea of time, for all 
come out of some obscure “future” and vanish irrecover¬ 
ably into some soon forgotten “past.” 

But to your Olympian self in the easy chair, with the 
241 


THE WANDERER 

entire room under observation, your cockroach sense of past, 
present and future will be seen to be measures not of time 
but of space. The cockroach is subject to a time illusion 
of which you are free, and in similar manner we are our¬ 
selves subject to a time illusion of which we some day shall 
be free. Time is an imperfect sensing, by a limited con¬ 
sciousness, of a higher-dimensional space. 

So to the question, “Did you ever live before?” I can 
make out but one answer: Because I live I have lived and 
shall live on eternally, and this infinite and unified existence 
will have for me the aspect of separate personal lives until 
“there shall be time no longer.” 

MARION GRACE SUMMER. 

I am afraid this question involves a fundamental discus¬ 
sion of the basis of religion. If we are to answer this ques¬ 
tion in the affirmative, or even to consider its discussion, 
there is suggested the theory of life after death. If a man 
die, shall he live again ? 

Now, I am a base materialist on this question. I believe 
that we are biological only, that we are created by act of 
our parents, that we live a time, and our organism ceases its 
function. Then we are dead and go back to dust. It is 
true religions have endowed us with souls. If this is true, 
I wonder where in the scheme of evolution souls suddenly 
appeared. 

Science tells us there are bushmen in Australia lower in 
the scale of life than some forms of gorilla. Then the apes 
either have souls or the bushmen haven’t, or souls and de¬ 
velopment have nothing in common. I cannot believe that 
I have a soul any more than a dog has, or a horse. It may 
be a different kind, but we both have life, and why should I 
be picked out to have one and my dog none ? 

It may be that the decomposition of my body will result 
in a new chemical reaction with other substances to form a 
242 


THE WANDERER 


new life. In that case, I may live again, but as for reincar¬ 
nation—that is only a form of hysteria for the amusement 
of idle women and the enrichment of clever men. 

HARRY SHAW. 

I believe I have lived before, that I will live again. Where 
I have lived, I do not know; where my next life will be I 
do not know. But I shall live, I am convinced of that. 

I am not a theosophist. I do not believe in the many in¬ 
teresting things that make up that interesting cult. I do not 
believe in a God. But I do believe that the ego of a person 
lives on in a series of lives. I believe it is nature and not 
a God that makes our ego live on. 

I have often met a person I have never seen before who 
is as familiar as though I had always been with him. I 
know so well the expression of his eyes. I know his hands, 
his voice. How do I know this person so well? Because 
I have been so closely associated with him in another life. 
I have often met a woman—one that I have never seen be¬ 
fore—yet every movement she makes, every expression she 
has, how well I know. Why? Because she has been 
closely associated with me in another life—perhaps she was 
my wife. 

I have often seen a piece of furniture—a chair, a mirror, 
a lamp—for the first time, and at the first glance I am filled 
with vague associations. They are so familiar to me; they 
seem like things I have always had around me. Why ? Be¬ 
cause they are things I have lived with, or owned, in another 
life. 

A series of lives is the only satisfactory religion. I like 
the thought of living on and on and on, and trying all states 
of life. It is a pity that one cannot remember these differ¬ 
ent existences, to have a chance to compare them. And I 
believe this secret will never be revealed to us—that we were 
never meant by nature to know. 

243 


THE WANDERER 


SHOULD WE ADOPT SIMPLIFIED 
SPELLING? 

“’Twas brillig, and the slithy toves 
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe; 

All mimsy were the botogroves, 

And the mome raths outgrabe” 

—Lewis Carroll in “Through the Looking Glass.” 

DR. W. J. HOLLAND, Director, Carnegie Institute. 

I N answer to the question “Should we adopt the simplified 
spelling?” I may ask “What simplified spelling?” I am a 
member of the advisory council of the simplified spelling 
board to which Mr. Carnegie contributed liberally before 
his death. Some of the recommendations of that board are 
sound and sensible. Others are revolutionary and in my 
judgment not well conceived from a philological standpoint. 

There is a society in London, which promulgates a “sim¬ 
plified spelling” based upon a system of phonetics, in which 
certain combinations of letters are arbitrarily chosen to des¬ 
ignate certain sounds in the English language. The result is 
most grotesque and, from the standpoint of a philologist, 
little short of “crazy.” 

I am in favor of some of the modifications recommended 
in the past, e. g., the substitution of program for pro¬ 
gramme, paleontology for palaeontology, archeology for 
archaeology, etc.; catalog for catalogue, monolog for mono¬ 
logue, etc., and many others, but I have not arrived at the 
point where I am willing as an author and an editor to write 
“ar” for are, “hav” for have, “bin” for been, etc. Lan¬ 
guage is a growth just like the plants which compose the 
vegetable kingdom, or the animals which compose the animal 
kingdom. 

So in language I prefer many words which have naturally 
244 


THE WANDERER 


grown out of the soil of the old Latin, Greek or Anglo- 
Saxon tongues to many of the curious misshapen substitutes, 
which a number of my contemporary friends have been in¬ 
venting as substitutes. Some of them will, no doubt, find 
acceptance in time, but many of them are forced and un¬ 
natural and have nothing to recommend them, except the 
very doubtful argument that they are “shorter.” There is 
such a thing as “false economy” in writing and printing, as 
well as in other things. I do not believe in it. There is a 
limited range of cases in which the so-called “simplified 
spellings” are advisable, but in a large degree most of 
those recently suggested violate my sense of the “everlasting 
fitness of things.” 

WILL GRANT CHAMBERS, Dean of School of Educa¬ 
tion, University of Pittsburg. 

My anser to yur question is an emfatic “Yes.” There is 
but one real objection to a simplified orthografy and that is 
an esthetic one, based on feeling rather than judgment, viz., 
“I don’t like the looks of it.” All other considerations ar 
in its favor. The gratest English scolars of the world be- 
leev in it, and many of them uze it. The editors of prac¬ 
tically all our grate English dictionaries ar its advocates. 
Our national filological and linguistic societies hav bin work¬ 
ing for its adoption for a generation. The one insurmount- 
abl barrier to the adoption of English as a world language is 
its impossibl spelling. The superintendent of the largest 
public scool system in the world has estimated that a simpli¬ 
fied fonetic spelling of English wud save two ful years out 
of the scool life of every boy and girl. At present, there is 
no relation between intelligens and ability to spel. The 
more one rezons about spelling, the more certain he is to spel 
it rong, for there is no rezon in our spelling. Why spend 
years out of our bizy life lerning to spel when we mite hav 
a language which spels itself? 

Yu say it wud be hard for those of us who wer brot up 
245 


THE WANDERER 


on the old spelling to read the simplified words? Yu hav 
bin abl to read all of this letter so far, havn’t yu ? A week’s 
practis wud mak yu skilful in the art, a munth wud make yu 
oblivius of its strange appearans, and a half-year wud com¬ 
pel yur preferens for the simpler forms for both practical 
and esthetic rezons. 

We ar anxius to hasten the proces of Americanizing our 
foreners. Hav yu watcht one of them struggling over the 
inconsistensies of the six dififerent sounds of “ough” in 
tough, trough, plough, through, though, thought (and there 
ar stil uther variations) ? Why not rite what we say, 
frankly, “tuf,” “trof,” “plow,” “thru,” “tho,” “thot”? If 
we uze crum, why dumb? If log, why catalogue? If pain, 
why campaign? If bed, why head? If cabin, why engine? 
If fantastic, why phantom? 

These common variations did not spring from any funda¬ 
mental principl—they ar accidents, short cuts, local devia¬ 
tions. They show how language is made. On the street 
car a concert is anounst for “to-nite”; 20 years hense “to- 
nite” wil be shuving “tonight” out of the dictionary; and in 
A. D. 2000 “to-nite” wil hav pusht its rival into oblivion. 

In every feeld of siens, industry, commers, invention, the 
practis of economy has bin brot about thru the application 
of rezon and the discuveries and inventions of siens. Na¬ 
ture’s processes ar hastend by the consius application of 
nature’s own laws. Why not apply the same common sens 
to the evolution of our language, and bring about immedi¬ 
ately the simplifications which wil arrive ultimately, any¬ 
how, and meanwhile hav the benefit of the economy in time 
and paper and ink, to say nothing of having eliminated the 
necessity of lerning to spel, with all the agonies which that 
proces implies for small American or for grown forener ? 

DR. LLOYD JENKINSON, Ph. D. 

The simplified spellers are the anarchists of language. 
They would overturn tradition and make all the books in 

246 


THE WANDERER 


our libraries as unreadable as Chaucer is to the man of to¬ 
day. If they had not got a lot of money from a rich man 
who never could spell, everybody would laugh at them. 

What is the use of their so-called simplification? It is a 
fact that pronunciation is always changing; it is different in 
different countries and even in adjoining States; you will 
hardly find three professors in the same university who 
pronounce alike; if Samuel Johnson were to come among 
us to-day we would probably laugh ourselves to death to 
find he spoke like the low Irish comedians on the stage. 

Now if we change the accepted spelling to correspond 
with the current pronunciation in some particular place (let 
us say London, as that is where most of our opinions are 
now being made for us), then in 20 years we would have 
to do the job all over again. A spelling once established 
stays put; pronunciation does not. So why should we re¬ 
print all our books to please some faddists, and have to do 
the job all over again in 20 years to please another bunch of 
cranks who can’t spell ? 

EMMELINE REECE. 

I rather think we should. Not only the spelling, but the 
pronunciation should be attended to, and remedied. Our 
language is the despair of foreigners who try to study it and 
the spelling of it has brought many a scolding and even 
whipping to children who are better and wiser than their 
parents and teachers just because we insist upon using as 
much of the alphabet as we possibly can in nearly every 
word. 

Pick up a dictionary, page through it and see the many 
useless letters there are in more words than you ever 
dreamed of. I am for taking out a lot of them. I like 
frills. I think they are lovely on dresses, but they don’t 
belong when it comes to spelling. They spoil a lot of good 
ink and paper, they tire one’s brain, and give a lot of unnec- 
247 


THE WANDERER 


essary wear to typewriters—why those machines would last 
easily twice as long as they now do if so many of those use¬ 
less letters did not have to be pounded so often. And when 
I think of the violence our spelling does to children’s minds ! 
But then it was good enough for our grandfathers, so it 
must be good enough for us. Go to, ye mossbacks, and 
learn something! 


SHOULD THE STANDARD OF 
MORALS FOR MEN AND 
WOMEN BE DIFFERENT? 

“When lovely woman stoops to folly , 

And finds too late that men betray; 

What charm can soothe her melancholy? 

What art can wash her guilt away?” 

—Oliver Goldsmith in “Vicar of Wakefield.” 

ISRAEL ZANGWILL. 

B Y the word “morals” you presumably mean sex morals, 
to which the meaning of the word has been curiously 
reduced. A play of mine on the subject was acquired some 
years ago by the so-called millionaire’s theater of New York, 
but as they did not produce it I presume that millionaires, 
like other men, shirk the question. 

It is really one for the men to answer about women, and 
women to answer about men, since the effects are worked 
out primarily upon the opposite sex. Men can have the 
women they demand, and women the men they demand. I 
hope you realize that if any one answered your question 
in the negative the answer might not be so moral as it 
sounds, since there are women who wish to degrade them¬ 
selves to the existing masculine standard, instead of uplift¬ 
ing it to the feminine. 


248 


THE WANDERER 


ROLAND KEYES. 

We have had enough of this argument of the comparative 
morals of men and women. The proponents of the single 
standard neglect entirely the truth of the situation. Their 
position is entirely one of sentiment, based only upon some 
artificiality of social pretense. 

If men and women were the same, with a mere differ¬ 
ence of dress, then the single standard would be the correct 
one. But there are stubborn facts in the way. Man is 
polygamous, woman monogamous. A single standard, 
which is in effect monogamy, would result in a generation 
in general hysteria of the male population. 

It is to be supposed there is no intent to make the women 
polygamous, as the single standard advocates never suggest 
this unnatural condition. The law recognizes the double 
standard for the reason that promiscuity among men has no 
effect upon family inheritance or upon the identity of chil¬ 
dren, while among the child-bearing sex, these elements are 
highly important. 

FRANK G. OSGOOD. 

There should be no standard of morals for either men or 
women. Every one should make his own standard, and live 
what he individually thinks to be right. Crimes against so¬ 
ciety should, of course, be punished, but one should not be 
punished for a crime which one commits against one’s self. 

If a girl goes wrong, she is the one to suffer, so why 
should she be criticized by others? If she harms no one 
but herself it is her own business, and I see no reason why 
society should not receive her the same as usual. 

Standards of morals mean nothing anyway, for money or 
position protect any one and make whatever the rich do a 
perfect standard of morality. If you believe a thing is 
wrong, you should not do it, but if you believe a thing is 

249 


THE WANDERER 

right, even though society says it is wrong, I think you 
should do it with a clean conscience and no regrets. 

ELIZABETH BAKER. 

I should say emphatically, no! But undoubtedly they are. 
Man can do innumerable things—vile things—and he will 
not be censured. Good society will not only tolerate him 
but even good women will close an eye, perhaps both, and 
court his presence, while the same good society will close its 
doors, and the good women, with holy horror in their wide- 
open eyes, will forever turn their backs on the unfortunates 
of their own sex who have had the misfortune (usually in 
the form of a man) to stray in the slightest degree from the 
narrow moral path imposed by society. 

It is generally admitted by man that woman occupies a 
morally higher plane than he does. Being a woman and be¬ 
lieving it to be an established fact I will not dispute it. I 
admit that he is physically stronger, and this may to some 
extent account for his being more vulgar and more brutal, 
but I will not admit that he is possessed of a superior men¬ 
tality, for I maintain that this must be measured by the pre¬ 
vailing degree of refinement and not by predominating 
coarseness, which when supported by his brute force, often 
submerges for a time all woman’s refining influences. 

Yet no matter how low morally man may sink, woman’s 
morally refined and spiritual superiority with him always 
commands respect, and when he comes under its influence 
noticeable improvement takes place in his depraved mental 
condition. 


250 


THE WANDERER 


WHEN DOES PROFIT-MAKING BE¬ 
COME PROFITEERING? 

"/ don't believe in principle , 

But, O, I do in interest ” 

—James Russell Lowell in “The Biglow Papers.” 

FREDERICK F. INGRAM. 

I SHOULD say profit-making becomes profiteering when 
through special privilege or monopoly there can be and is 
exacted from the consumer a price beyond such that is made 
by the natural laws of supply and demand. 

Competition in the long run, under freedom, restricts the 
seller to a fair profit. The inefficient, ignorant or lazy seller 
cannot compete with the more efficient, consequently is 
forced into another vocation. There can be no free compe¬ 
tition in natural monopolies, as a consequence they should 
not be in private hands. Artificial monopolies are just as 
oppressive. These are possible under favoring laws, or if 
the violation of law and contempt of society is permitted. 
The remedy is to repeal all laws that stand in the way of 
equal opportunity. 

Private ownership of natural monopolies, like transporta¬ 
tion, is one prolific source of profiteering and should be 
abolished. Profiteering will continue so long as the Govern¬ 
ment permits vital monopolies like the natural resources 
and transportation, to remain in private hands. They can 
only remain in private hands through being granted certain 
attributes of sovereignty. Possessed of such attributes, pri¬ 
vate concerns become too powerful for efficient Government 
regulation. 


251 


THE WANDERER 


C. F. SHANDREW. 

** 

Profit-making becomes profiteering when monopoly or 
privilege enters into price. For example, our land laws en¬ 
courage the purchase and withholding from use of many 
thousands of acres of coal land. This is the fundamental 
reason why the price of coal can be fixed at the highest point 
and consequently makes possible the profiteering in coal. The 
same holds true as to other minerals and oil. 

A protective tariff acts as a privilege to manufacturers 
and enables them to get greater profits than they can earn, 
and so puts them in the class of profiteers. The banking 
interests are also in the class of profiteers for the reason 
that they, too, have Government privileges. The strength 
of all profiteering lies in Government-granted privileges; 
that is, special legislation favoring the few at the expense of 
the many and enabling some to tax others. The remedy of 
course is the abolition of all privilege. Nothing else is of 
any avail. 

The profits of the storekeeper are, in the great majority 
of cases, his wages, honestly and laboriously earned, and 
truly reflecting the service he has rendered his customers 
and society. Yet, to divert public attention from them¬ 
selves, the profiteers have not scrupled to attack the store¬ 
keeper and are trying to make a scapegoat of him. They 
have also invented a bogy which they call the middleman 
and use him for the same deceitful purpose. Of course 
these tricks do not deceive the wise, but do deceive many 
newspaper readers who judge by appearances, jump to con¬ 
clusions or thoughtlessly accept whatever they are told. 

GEORGE CARTWRIGHT. 

Manufacturers, who organize skilled workers in quantity 
production, enabling us to buy labor products cheaper and 
better than we personally could make them, receive a price 

252 


THE WANDERER 


in excess of labor and material cost, a fair profit for their 
ability to organize. Contrast this with the taxpayers’ pur¬ 
chase of Hog Island under-water land at $1,000 an acre; a 
price probably many times its tax listed value, and we have 
examples of profit and profiteering. 

We collectively are responsible. In 1879 Henry George 
proved ground rent to be public property. Since then our 
sin of omission collectively has been failure to demand Fed¬ 
eral and State constitution amendments requiring Federal, 
State and local taxes to be a single tax on ground rents, 
which would have rid us of the ground rent profiteer long 
before the war. We may yet demand that war bond interest 
and sinking funds for their repayment become a Federal 
levy upon land values, the most direct action remedy for 
preventing future wars as might be easily proved if space 
permitted. 

WILLIAM P. HALENKAMP. 

Profiteering is profit taking and not profit making. To 
make a profit, in the accepted sense of the phrase, one must 
do something to earn the profit—render commensurate serv¬ 
ice in return. Such profits are justified. Profiteering en¬ 
ters when there is a margin above a fair return for service 
rendered, or when the whole profit, so called, is received for 
no service. Profits taken for no service are easily found. 
Gamblers with dice, food or land take profits; they do not 
earn them. The take, or profit, is evident, the service is 
not. Who cannot see the profiteering in such transactions ? 

This most flagrant profiteering can be stopped. Absorb 
the profits of gambling through taxation and you will end 
gambling. Then land gamblers could not increase their 
wealth by holding land out of use for an increase in land 
values. 

Remember—so long as we reward land gambling, land 
values will increase; and we cannot support $300 an acre 
land with prices that obtained two years ago when the same 
253 


THE WANDERER 


land sold for $100 an acre. This discussion will have 
* served a most useful purpose if it results in directing atten¬ 
tion to the most apparent profiteering and a consideration 
of the single tax as a means to eliminate the land gambler. 

LUDWIG SCHMUCKER. 

The efficiency engineers of modern business advise every 
merchant to pay himself a salary and charge it off in the 
books as an expense of the business. All gain beyond that 
is profit. Or, to phrase it differently, all gain beyond legiti¬ 
mate expense and wages, is a graft stolen by the merchant 
for which the consumer gets nothing. In this sense, all 
profit is profiteering. There is no excuse for profit, it is a 
toll levied by persons who add nothing to the value of the 
article. 

Rent and interest are in the same class as profit. More 
graft; rent for things which should be owned in common; 
interest for the use of money, a device for speculators in 
finance. Profit is that great good which in our enlightened 
country is the reason for production. Instead of producing 
for use, we produce for profit. 

Where there is no profit, there is no production. There- 
fore, instead of artists and musicians, philosophers and lit¬ 
terateurs, we have Howard Chandler Christys, Irving Ber¬ 
lins, Herbert Kaufmanns and Mary Roberts Rineharts. 
Our national ideal is profit; our great men are profiteers. 
So long as the dollar is our index of worth, we cannot expect 
to be a Nation of other than transient importance. 


254 


THE WANDERER 


DID ST. PATRICK REALLY CHASE 
SNAKES OUT OF IRELAND? 

“The snakes he drove away 
Were teetotalers, they say — 

Teetotalers, they say, my boys, 

Teetotalers, they say!” 

—Theodore Maynard. 

GEORGE CREEL. 

E VIDENTLY not. Sir Edward Carson is still very 
much in evidence. 


WILLIAM BEACONFIELD. 

The story of St. Patrick chasing the snakes out of Ire¬ 
land is true, but when he chased them out of Ireland, he 
chased them into the Irishmen. 

JOHN BURROUGHS. 

I hardly know whether to take your question about St. 
Patrick as a joke or not. I cannot see how any sane person 
could ask it seriously. St. Patrick could no more banish the 
snakes from Ireland than you or I could. 

Did he banish the toads also, as I believe there are no 
toads there? The question is absurd to any one but an 
Irishman. 

THOMAS R. CURRAN. 

There can be no doubt of the authenticity of this remarka¬ 
ble story. These reptiles, unclean among some of the an¬ 
cients, were widely diffused through the world, but the most 
numerous and venomous were in tropical climates. As the 
255 


THE WANDERER 


climate of Ireland was not so warm the snakes that inhab¬ 
ited that isle before the days of St. Patrick were small and 
not very dangerous. 

Just how the deed was done is still a matter of specula¬ 
tion. Some think the pests were driven before him into the 
sea, while others present the theory that the animals merely 
died by the saint’s blessing of the ground and making it 
holy. 

C. K. BERRYMAN, Cartoonist, Washington Evening Star. 

When I was under the tutelage of my old black mammy 
in Kentucky I believed the St. Patrick snake story. After 
a third of a century in the National Capital and having made 
an exhaustive study of the snake, I find the reptile is a peace 
and quiet loving soul, and I’m convinced that the Irish 
Council of the International Snake Union unanimously de¬ 
cided to sneak out of that boisterous, brass band, boiler fac¬ 
tory, shillalah-shaking country for some Quaker-like spot 
elsewhere. 

St. Patrick’s ever alert publicity agent must have seen the 
reptiles retreating, and he naturally hogged the honor for 
his world renowned chief. 

St. Patrick, in writing up a very voluminous autobiog¬ 
raphy of his life for the Encyclopedia Britannica, makes 
absolutely no reference to the snake chase, hence I must 
infer that some of his enthusiastic Ulster friends slipped the 
canard over on the good saint. 

LENA RICE. 

“When you don’t know, don’t be ashamed to admit you 
don’t know!” So I’ll own up, I don’t know if “Padrick” 
shooed the snakes out of Ireland or not. But I will say I 
have my doubts about it. The Irish haven’t excelled in 
making whisky all these years for nothing. There must be 
256 


THE WANDERER 


a snake or two left, else why make all the snake-bite medi¬ 
cine? And if my doubts are groundless and Saint “Pat” 
did chase the snakes all out, then I’ll say he played the Irish 
a dirty trick, that’s all! Why, it’s just like pulling the cradle 
out from under the baby, so it is, to remove the only legiti¬ 
mate excuse for a healthy “bunn!” 

JOHN O’KELLY. 

St. Patrick, as is usual with saints, did something per¬ 
fectly useless. In his case it was the driving of the snakes 
out of Ireland. This is settled by history, which never tells 
the truth. 

The really important question is, why did St. Patrick waste 
his valuable time on the snakes when he could have driven 
out worse things than snakes ? Snakes, the real kind, after 
some training, form a delightful pet around the house, and 
can be trained to carry newspapers, stand up on their hind 
legs and bark for fish. But their best use is to crawl down 
clogged pipes and clean them out. When the pipes become 
frozen during the coal strike, which is over in the courts and 
persists in the mines, the hot breath of a well-trained serpent 
will work wonders, far superior to hot rags. 

But why did St. Padraic drive out the Irish plays, start¬ 
ing with Lord Dunsany and ending with William Butler 
Yeats? 

THOMAS DARRAGH MULLINS 

Yes, nearly 15 centuries ago the snakes were driven out 
of Ireland into the seas by St. Patrick. However, snakes 
from an adjacent country, in another form (biped) in vary¬ 
ing numbers, and at different periods, have since invaded 
Ireland. 

At the present time the number of those invaders (Eng¬ 
lish) in Ireland is variously estimated at from 100,000 to 
250,000. Strenuous efforts have been made by the Irish 
257 


THE WANDERER 

people to exterminate them, but so far without complete sue- 
cess. 

Indeed, the United States is also pestered with them, but 
has now joined hands with Ireland in the battle of exter¬ 
mination, and it is very probable that with the next few 
months both countries will be as free from snakes (of the 
two-legged specimen) as Ireland was of the original species 
in the year 432. 


HAVE CHORUS GIRLS BEEN 
MALIGNED? 

“At this vaudeville show , 

Curtain after curtain rises, 

Revealing only the curtain behind it, 

Never the whole stage.” 

—Ralph Cheyney in “The Pagan” 

MARIE DRESSLER. 

H AVE the chorus girls been maligned? The question is 
easily answered—yes and no. My intense desire to help 
my country in the last four years kept me out of the theatrical 
profession and in the interim many have “snuck” in that 
should be “snucked” out. Yet I want the public in general 
to know that many girls are maligned and if the public could 
just get an insight into their real lives, it would put to shame 
many a household sheltering the so-called “better classes.” 

ED WYNN. 

When my show is over, I take the liberty of mingling with 
my audience to see if I can get suggestions from the public 
because I feel it is no more than right that the public should 
have a say as to the sort of entertainment they pay to see. 
258 


THE WANDERER 

In asking them what they think of the play they invariably 
mention that I have such pretty, wholesome-looking girls in 
my show. 

I have come to the conclusion that the girls of a musical 
play are just as essential as the highest-priced artist, conse¬ 
quently, I believe in showing them the same consideration 
individually as well as collectively I would the principals of 
my play. I spread among them much happiness and their 
very appearance on the stage conveys to the audience their 
contentment. It is my personal opinion that in giving 
chorus girls proper treatment back stage, they feel their indi¬ 
vidual importance and lighten the burden considerably for 
the manager who has at heart the morale of his organiza¬ 
tion. 

DR. W. J. DUNCAN. 

No class of women has so many temptations as the chorus 
girl. Salaries are poor in comparison with their high ex¬ 
penses; constant life in a hotel or rooming house makes 
them careless, and their close association with men on the 
stage—kissing scenes, etc.—tempt them to take lightly the 
great human passions that should be sacred. 

The majority of women who live at home are sheltered 
from all these temptations, and it is naturally easier for them 
to lead a quiet, subdued life. And in passing judgment on 
the chorus girl we must make allowances for her mode of 
life, and not be too harsh. 

Chorus girls have been more or less maligned. I do not 
believe half the things people—yes, ministers—say about 
them. I think a chorus girl can have just as high and pure 
a standard of morality as the most modest little violet, who 
has never been away from home. The girl who has never 
been out and bumped against the world is apt to be less 
sympathetic than the chorus girl. She is more likely to 
have a harder heart. Purity is often a cruel judge. 

I do not approve of the stage as an institution, but since 
259 


THE WANDERER 

we have it and it seems to be a permanent fixture of our 
civilization, I am broad-minded enough to believe all justice 
should be given to members of companies who follow the 
art, and I hope that every one will look upon the chorus girl 
as a most respected member of society making an honest 
living by hard work. 

ROSIE QUINN. 

If those who condemn the chorus girl as “immoral” would 
go back stage when a musical play is the attraction and ob¬ 
serve the discipline maintained there from the minute the 
curtain is rung up until the last player has left the theater, 
then follow the majority of the gay-appearing chorus girls 
to hotel hallrooms, the cheapest accommodations in the 
building, perhaps they would become convinced that the life 
of a chorine is not such a riotous affair after all. 

Once in a while, when a chorus girl does go out for a 
midnight fun excursion she usually suffers the next per¬ 
formance, barely keeping awake, much to the amusement of 
the remainder of the ensemble. They know by experience 
that only when they have been refreshed by a long and 
sound sleep the night before can they expect to be able to 
go through the performance with the required zest and snap. 
They know that many of their sisters have been “fined and 
fired” for the very reason that the night before they tried 
to burn the candle at both ends, with the result that they 
literally “slept” through the performance. 

No, the critics of morality are all wrong when they at¬ 
tempt to condemn the morals of the chorines. While I am 
happy to say that under a new contract my role is that of a 
principal, my chorus days include some of the brightest and 
most interesting episodes in my career. 

“BILLIE” WAGNER. 

Most of the wild stories about chorus girls are myths, 
conceived in the minds of imaginative individuals. As a 
260 


THE WANDERER 


matter of record, fully 75 percent of most choruses is com¬ 
posed of intelligent young women eager to make their way 
on the stage, to assure economic independence. Once in a 
while “a bad egg” does slip into our ranks, but usually, when 
her spineless character is understood by the decent members 
of the ensemble, she is given what is better known as “the 
air.” 

Sometimes I think the girls of the chorus are a great deal 
stronger-willed than young women in many other walks of 
life, and here is my reason: Theatrical life offers many, 
many temptations. Hotel life, frequent changing from one 
town to another at all hours of the day and night, the glamor 
of the music and the tinsel, combine to make it difficult for 
us to remain on the straight and narrow road. Neverthe¬ 
less, only a small percentage plunge themselves into the 
abyss from which few arise. 

Dramatists and novelists have convinced the chorus girl 
that the primrose life is weary, thankless, hopeless and dis¬ 
mal, and that a girl is a fool to make the fatal move. True, 
some of us crave excitement, that is, if staying up until the 
wee wee hours of the morning, singing, dancing and feast¬ 
ing, is considered a genuine pleasure. The life of a chorine 
is strenuous at best, and this recreation is occasionally neces¬ 
sary. In fact, it is not recreation, it is imperative relaxa¬ 
tion. 

VERNE SHERIDAN. 

The poor, dear, chorus girl! Rather, I should say, the 
rich, expensive chorus lady! Have “they” been talking 
about her again? To malign means to defame—on the con¬ 
trary all the chin-wagging of the more or less virtuous has 
brought her fame. Some 10 or 15 years ago a chorus girl 
was truly poor and had to worry along on her $15 per as 
best she could. To-day, thanks to those who paint her as a 
taxi-riding, champagne-drinking—excuse me, we’ve got pro¬ 
hibition now—grape juice guzzling, silken robed person, she 

261 


THE WANDERER 

has these things offered her and showered upon her until 
she’d be nothing short of not human were she to refuse 
them. 

If a man wishes the society of a pretty, well-dressed lady 
at an after-theater supper and he cannot find one among his 
friends, relatives, and acquaintances, something is wrong 
with said man. He chooses a chorus girl, an utter stranger. 
As host he pays the bills and why should he not? If the 
affair ends there, there is no cause for complaint. If he 
has another motive, in our present high state of civilized lan¬ 
guage commonly called “going the limit,” he makes an ass 
of himself. He buys gifts of all sorts, spends huge sums at 
entertaining, begs, cries, and scolds in turn until he is 
tumbled into the state of soreheadedness and chagrin by 
being thrown down hard. 

Is the girl to blame for the man showing himself the fool 
he is? Why should she take the onus for what the man 
himself has started, kept going, and intends further to keep 
going? When a lot of imbeciles with money run about 
shouting: “I want to buy! I want to buy!” always will 
some one be found who will sell. 

But why do we talk about the chorus girl? Is she so dif¬ 
ferent from the rest of her sex? I think that is the entire 
reason for people’s moralizing about her. She is different 
in that she is honest—give her due credit! She makes no 
pretense to be other than she is, which is much, much more 
than many of her sex can lay claim to! The shams, the lies, 
the deceits with which the average woman encrusts herself, 
make me pay homage to the chorus girl. She is a sport— 
every woman wants to be—but she has the courage, let the 
tongues wag! If she uses a man for what gifts she can get 
from him and is clever at that sort of thing, whom is she 
injuring? The man? Ask him. If he tells you he gives 
Mamie or Clara presents because she is a nice girl he is not 
being hurt, is he ? It gives him pleasure to please her. 

Her reputation? La! No matter how precise she might 
262 


THE WANDERER 


be the prurient would not permit her a clean reputation— 
neither would the press agent of the show she is in—there, 
the secret is out! Let a New York manager be found who 
will produce a show with chorus girls forbidden to have 
“Johns” and I will perform any miracle you will ask of me. 
One is just as possible as the other! 


IS LYNCHING EVER JUSTIFIABLE? 

“Nor all that heralds rake from coffin 9 d clay 
Nor florid prose nor honeyed lines of rhyme , 

Can blazon evil deeds or consecrate a crime 99 

—Byron in “Childe Harold.” 

STEPHEN S. WISE, Rabbi of the Free Synagogue, 
New York. 

N OTHING in American life is more deeply violating of 
the spirit of America than is lynching under any cir¬ 
cumstances, whatever. Lynching is a denial of order, of 
law and, therefore, the reversal of democracy. 

ROBERT R. MOTON, Tuskegee Institute, Alabama. 

Is lynching ever justifiable ? My answer is unequivocally 
no! In the early days of the country, when on the fron¬ 
tiers the machinery of the law had not been established, 
there may have been some excuse for the people to take the 
law into their own hands; but at the present day, when in 
every part of the Nation, laws are duly constituted and the 
machinery for their operation is everywhere set up, there is 
no excuse for a mob to take the law into its hands. It is 
never justifiable to punish one crime by committing another, 
and lynching is as much a violation of the law as the crime 
which it undertakes to punish. 

263 


THE WANDERER 


FRANK P. SMITH, Editor, The Pittsburg Catholic. 

Lynching, lynch law, terms in the United States for the 
trial and punishment of offenders by private individuals, 
whether in. organized bodies or in mobs, without reference 
to the ordinary forms of law, is a barbarous mode of at¬ 
tempt at justice and is never justifiable. It undermines the 
power of the civil government, and its frightful abuse is a 
dangerous relic of barbarism. According'to its significa¬ 
tion in civil jurisprudence homicide is the “killing of a hu¬ 
man being by a human being.” 

Lynching means the unjust taking away of human life, 
perpetrated by one distinct from the victim and acting in a 
private capacity. The malice discoverable in the act is pri¬ 
marily chargeable to the relation of the supreme ownership 
of God on the lives of His creatures. It arises as well from 
the manifest outrage upon one of the most conspicuous and 
cherished rights enjoyed by man, namely, the right to life. 
For the scope contemplated here, a person is regarded as in¬ 
nocent, so long as he has not by any responsible act brought 
any hurt to the community, or to an individual, comparable 
with the loss of life. Hence lynching cannot be adduced to 
justify the use of force for purposes of reprisal or revenge 
by a private individual. This latter is a function belonging 
to the public authority. A private individual may never 
lawfully kill any one whatever, because in self-defense one 
does not, technically speaking, kill, but only endeavors to 
stop the trespasser. Hence it would follow that only by due 
operation of law may a human being ever be directly done 
to death. 

HERBERT J. SELIGMANN, National Association for the 
Advancement of Colored People, New York. 

Lynching, as the term is used to-day, denotes murder 
either without trial at all or after trial by an informal and 
self-appointed body of men who act as an extemporized 
264 


THE WANDERER 


\ court. It cannot be justified in any community that pretends 
to civilization. It substitutes the personal desire for ven¬ 
geance, or blood lust, for the impartial justice which the 
State and its instruments, the courts, seek to render. Most 
lynchings are accompanied by bestial cruelties unknown to 
primitive savagery. Frequently lynching is the result not of 
the commission of a crime but of jealousy or animus. As 
for the oftrepeated falsehood that lynching occurs only to 
punish rape, published figures show that in only one-third 
of the mob murders in the United States in the last 30 years 
have attacks upon women been even alleged as the occasion. 
In 1918, five women were lynched in the United States. 
The effect of lynching is to brutalize those who participate 
in or tolerate it, and to vitiate the thought and the political 
life of a Nation in which it occurs. 

REV. C. E. LIEBEGOTT. 

The answer to this question has been given centuries ago 
by the prophet Amos, when he spoke to the Nation of Israel 
in these words: “Hate the evil and love the good and estab¬ 
lish justice in the gate. ,, Lynching is the expression of the 
savage instinct in man, is absolutely wrong and is in direct 
violation of all interests of man, destroying the social order 
which adds to man’s welfare and promotes an evil of olden 
days which in any civilized country cannot be promoted un¬ 
der the guise of being justifiable. 

While lynching is not generally practiced in our country, 
it nevertheless is a fact that one or more scenes of mob rule, 
as is demonstrated at the lynchings, has a direct and effect¬ 
ual retarding influence upon the moral character of the na¬ 
tional life. 

Lynching in every respect defeats the great end of the civil 
law and if civil law is not sustained by impartial justice the 
moral law is doomed and immediately human life becomes 
worthless. If anarchy is anywhere expressed it is in the 
mob who disregards and sneers at the civil law and courts 
265 


THE WANDERER 

of justice, for it brings to pass and creates the same result 
as the anarchist who preaches the overthrowing of law. It 
tells man to obey the law if he desires so to do or violate it 
if he has fault to find with it. 

Justice can only be established when citizens have a re¬ 
spect for the law; the lyncher has no respect for it, but 
would turn justice into injustice and disorder, which spells 
destruction. Let every man apply the law as he sees fit, is 
the doctrine of the lyncher, but by it civilization would be 
rushed headlong into a state that man could not exist. 
Lynching leads to violence in its most horrible aspect. It 
destroys man’s individual responsibility for his fellowmen. 
It promotes crime and instills in man a disregard for the 
means by which society can grow and develop. It is a men¬ 
ace to the well-being of man and therefore can never be jus¬ 
tified so long as civil courts have been ordained by God and 
man to mete out justice to all. The criminal has rights as 
abiding and eternal as the man who obeys the law, and those 
rights are the rights of justice as meted out by our civil 
courts. 


IS THE MYSTIC A HUMAN NEED? 

“Seek not to know what must not be revealed, 

Joys only flow where Fate is most concealed; 

Too busy men would find his sorrows more 
If future fortunes he should know before; 

For by the knowledge of his Destiny 
He would not live at all, but always die ” 

—Dryden’s “The Indian Queen.” 

HOWARD THURSTON, Magician. 

I F a mystic’s teaching tends to stimulate our belief in the 
supernatural he is decidedly a human need. To a great 
majority of the people of the world the belief in things they 
2 66 


THE WANDERER 


cannot understand is the greatest factor for moral conduct. 
Only those who> are returned to earth through many rein¬ 
carnations have sufficiently survived the selfish human in¬ 
stincts to do good from purely philanthropic motives. 

REV. A. J. BONSALL. 

A mystic is one who professes direct divine illumination; 
who endeavors to obtain union with the Deity by contem¬ 
plation and self-sacrifice. If I understand the question it 
is whether human society needs such persons to leaven it. 
Certainly. The antithesis of mysticism is rationalism. A 
mixture of the two is likelier to hold the world nearer to 
an equilibrium. 

Prof. William James in his “Varieties of Religious Ex¬ 
periences” has a chapter on mysticism and discusses the 
reality of mystical states and the importance of their func¬ 
tion. He says: “One may say truly, I think, that personal 
religious experience has its root and center in mystical 
states of consciousness.” And again: “Does it—the mystic 
range of consciousness—furnish any warrant for the truth 
* * * it favors ?” In brief my answer is this: 

(1) Mystical states, when well developed, usually are, 
and have the right to be, absolutely authoritative over the 
individuals to whom they come. 

(2) No authority emanates from them which should 
make it a duty for those who stand outside of them to 
accept their revelations uncritically. 

(3) They break down the authority of the non-mystical 
or rationalistic consciousness, based upon understanding and 
senses alone. They show it to be only one kind of con¬ 
sciousness. They open out the possibility of other orders 
of truth, in which, so far as anything in us vitally responds 
to them, we may freely continue to have faith.” 

The opening of another window for light and air, the 
opening of another door of passage for the human con- 

267 


THE WANDERER 

sciousness is certainly a utility for the human race. Too 
much mysticism would turn the world into a monastic re¬ 
treat ; the absence of it would leave the world a desert. 

DR. M. S. HOLT. 

No. Mystics in relation to the origin and destiny of 
man are baneful, constituting, as shown by history, the 
greatest barrier to human progress. The mystic marks the 
terminal of intellectual guidance. Like drowning men catch¬ 
ing at straws, his respiratory tract becomes submerged, 
and the lungs cease to function. 

Mysticism will as surely destroy the functioning of the 
brain. The best balanced minds are not absorbed in mystics. 
They realize that there are limitations to the eye and they 
are blind who have failed to observe the inevitable result 
of mysticism on the lives of past generations. 

Blood and carnage tarnish the pages of history where 
mystics reigned. Millions of children have been destroyed 
by parents deluded by delving in mysticism. Philanthropists 
and philosophers have been the targets of mercenaries, who 
depend upon mystic assassins. Fakirs grow fat on mys¬ 
ticism and the deluded become more intolerant and bigoted. 

DOROTHY BASSETT HOLLOWAY. 

Were there but one religion the mystics could unite their 
forces and exterminate the rationalists, but each new re¬ 
ligious cult is of itself an assurance that religious liberty 
has one more safeguard against extinction. The older and 
better established mystics, jealous of their emoluments and 
prerogatives, busy themselves fighting the newer, and there¬ 
fore weaker, cults, and in this continued warring of re¬ 
ligionists lies the hope of retaining that small modicum 
of religious liberty now vouchsafed to a long-suffering and 
superstition-ridden world. 


268 


THE WANDERER 

Freedom is the greatest of human needs and anything 
which adds to human freedom is a human need. The 
continuous strife among the different mystic cults safe¬ 
guards human freedom and, therefore, as can readily be 
understood, the mystic is a human need. 

FRANK A. MILLER. 

Certainly. If all things were made plain to us, what 
would become of curiosity? We are most interested in 
what we cannot understand. Give us but one good look 
and immediately we are satisfied, and start chasing another 
obscurity. 

What excuse could we offer for being hood-winked, 
buffaloed, bamboozled time and time again if we fully 
comprehended? A lot of us are saved from being plain 
darnfools by the hocus pokus of the mystical. 

Were the hidden importance of to-morrow revealed we 
would dodge a good many good things, even if we be on the 
level to-day to do it. Is it a human need? Why, it’s a 
human creature! No other order of life indulges in the 
game of blind man’s buff or hide and seek except man. 
If there is no chance to satisfy his mysticisms he will make 
one by hiding his heart from his fellow man and complicat¬ 
ing life to such an extent that no one can ever find the 
answer. 

We have become so accustomed to having things hidden 
from us by the stupefying mystic in some form that when 
we are confronted with the open truth, we do not recognize 
it. Perhaps this is well for us, as we could not suffer 
direct contact with realities and retain our love for the 
make-believe. We prefer to swallow our castor oil well 
disguised, to face the blinding glare of life with our eyes 
shaded by the gray goggles of mystery. 


269 


THE WANDERER 


SHOULD THE ESPIONAGE ACT BE 
REPEALED? 

“States are great engines moving slowly.” 

—Bacon. 

DANIEL KIEFER. 

S HOULD the espionage act be repealed ? Not if we want 
lese majesty prosecutions in this country. Not if we 
would make permanent the Prussian policy that has pre¬ 
vailed since the declaration of war. Not if we object to 
knowing the truth about our Government and our institu¬ 
tions. Not if we prefer autocracy to freedom. Not if we 
are tired of claiming to be the “freest people on earth.” 

Back in the 70’s an American family paid a visit to Ger¬ 
many. It included a young man of 12 who enjoyed himself 
at the expense of his German playmates by continually 
telling them: “When I am at home I can call our President 
a fool if I want to, but you dare not call your Kaiser 
that.” It was an ill-mannered boast to be sure, but it 
crudely described the difference between freedom and au¬ 
tocracy. 

While the espionage act remains in force no American 
boy can truthfully repeat that boast wherever he may be. 
But he may have to bear in silence a similar taunt from a 
British, Scandinavian, or even a German, youth. He can¬ 
not truthfully deny it if it should be flung at him in a 
form like this: “I can tell the whole truth at home about 
our Government, our laws, our officials and our institutions. 
But you dare not do it about yours. You will go to jail 
if you do.” 

If this is a desirable situation let the espionage law re¬ 
main. It suits the grafters, corruptionists, and predatory 
270 


THE WANDERER 


interests generally, and we may need them more than we do 
liberty. If this is not a desirable situation—but I had 
better not hint at such a thing. Some judge may consider 
it a violation of the act. I don’t want to go to jail. So 
I refuse to answer your question. 

DR. LOUIS LASDAY. 

I favor the repeal of the espionage act, and, more im¬ 
portant still, the defeat of the peace-time espionage law 
to be submitted to Congress. 

The espionage act was passed during the war to curb 
or reach a comparatively few alien enemies in this country 
actively plotting to stop war production or hampering the 
United States in its efforts at prosecuting the war against 
Germany. The war has been over for more than a year, 
and excuse for continued existence of the espionage act 
has likewise been removed. 

Under the guise of combatting radicalism in this country, 
and carried along on a wave of national and official hysteria, 
a new espionage act is being proposed which, if passed, will 
become a powerful weapon in the hands of reactionary 
forces to prevent and suppress all freedom of expression. 

The abuse of freedom of speech, which it is sought to 
correct by such drastic and far-reaching legal enactment 
as is proposed, pales into insignificance in comparison to 
the greater abuses that will be perpetrated under the guise 
of law. The remedy becomes worse than the disease it 
seeks to cure. 

What profiteth a man to win the world and lose his soul ? 
Likewise, what profiteth the United States to gain world 
markets, to become pre-eminent as a material factor in 
world politics, and lose its spiritual and moral prestige it 
has been proudly accorded and has claimed for over a cen¬ 
tury and a quarter as a free democracy, wherein freedom 
of conscience, speech, press, assemblage, has been a funda¬ 
mental law of the land? 


271 


THE WANDERER 


JENNIE L. MUNROE. 

Should the espionage act be repealed ? My answer is yes. 
My reason is I believe no greater danger confronts the 
country than denial of free speech and free assembly. 

One editor has well said, “How are we to know what 
our countrymen have to offer by way of remedy for evils 
which all know exist, unless we permit them to be heard? 
Are the people of this country so shallow-minded and does 
their country mean so little to them that they must be pro¬ 
tected from hearing some wild doctrine lest they rush 
pell-mell to their destruction? To believe so is to admit 
democracy a failure and ignorance a virtue.” 

EMMA L. BRICKER. 

Should the espionage act be repealed? Most assuredly, 
yes. From every hill and hamlet we are greeted with 
“My country, ’tis of thee, sweet land of liberty, of thee I 
sing. Land where our fathers died, land of the pilgrims’ 
pride, From every mountain side, let Freedom ring.” 

This does not mean license, but liberty to think and 
act as free men—not slaves to the opinions of others. In 
the stress of war and trouble, our law makers were at 
their wits’ end to know how to control the hundred mil¬ 
lions of people at home, and to wage gigantic war abroad. 
The espionage act was made a law in order to subdue a 
certain class of individuals. 

We are all aware it was not entirely satisfactory, for it 
did not apprehend all the guilty. On the other hand it 
caused suffering to many who were entirely innocent of 
any crime. Some of these served many months in Federal 
prisons, and endured hardships of various kinds. 

I sincerely hope all such political prisoners will be re¬ 
leased and the espionage act be repealed, very soon. I 
am glad to know we are in the dawning of the Golden Age 

272 


THE WANDERER 


of prophecy—the kingdom of righteousness so long looked 
for and prayed for. Then all necessity for such laws will 
be done away when all shall forsake evil and learn to do 
good. We have the divine word for it that wars shall 
cease unto the ends of the earth and peace shall reign from 
sea to sea. Then the inhabitants of the earth shall learn 
righteousness. 

T. K. LEHMAN. 

The espionage act was good during the war. It was 
not the number of spies it caught that made it count, but the 
number of outrageous acts it prevented, that made it good. 

Of course, it was a war time measure, but I do not see 
any reason for hurrying its repeal. The Reds are quite 
as dangerous to our country as the pro-Germans ever were. 
Better let it hang on for a little, until America comes to 
its senses, and I would advise every good American to join 
the American Legion. 

CLARE A. MEYERS. 

The espionage act was passed for the purpose of pre¬ 
venting and punishing German spies. Not one case of a 
German spy has ever been brought into the court under the 
act. Hundreds of Socialists and other radicals, whose 
only crime consisted in criticism of the Governmental war 
policy, a right exercised by Edmund Burke and William 
Gladstone, have been imprisoned under its provisions. 

The espionage act is loosely drawn. In one provision 
it provides that any person who shall cause or attempt 
to cause insubordination or mutiny in the military or naval 
forces of the United States shall be guilty. In one case 
this was held to warrant the conviction of a boy who de¬ 
clined to buy Liberty bonds. 

The act has been used for persecuting people who dis¬ 
agree with Mr. Wilson and his advisers. Such men as 
273 


THE WANDERER 

Eugene V. Debs have been sent to prison under the pro¬ 
visions of this law, without other crime than that of ex¬ 
pressing opinions. 

Its constitutionality has never been decided. It aims to 
suppress free speech and the right of the press, and while 
many unthinking Americans may applaud this deprivation, 
their views will change when the precedent is set and it ap¬ 
pears that it is a concession to the right of autocratic gov¬ 
ernment, which will be used for the destruction of divergent 
political opinion. 

The repeal of this act is an acknowledgement that it 
should never have been passed and the sooner it is done 
the better for common decency. 

FREDERICK GROTE. 

Should the espionage act be repealed? It should never 
have been enacted. The most pernicious piece of legislation 
that is on the statute books. The enactment shows con¬ 
scious weakness on the part of its framers and sponsors— 
fear that truth and righteousness might manifest itself. 

In war times, because of the extra hardship, burdens 
and responsibility put upon the masses, the people should 
have the right to discuss the merits of war imposed upon 
them by legislators, who may have violated the platform 
upon which they were elected. Legislators and so-called 
spokesmen of the people have more than once turned traitor 
to constituents. 

He who was re-elected because he kept us out of the war 
plunged us into a war the consequences of which are re¬ 
acting on all sides—causing strikes, higher cost of living 
and economic problems of all kinds. 

We have boasted so incessantly of our freedom that we 
have lulled ourselves to sleep, and during our lethargy 
we have been fettered and bound by pernicious legislation. 
We have been coerced and intimidated, and the Govern- 

274 


THE WANDERER 


ment has grown so powerful in autocracy that it is prob¬ 
lematical when, if ever, we shall be freed from bondage. 
The espionage act prevented every fact or truth being pre¬ 
sented which in any wise might appear to thwart or im¬ 
pair the full machinery of the regime in favor of war. 

To a reasoning mind, the mere fact of a declaration 
of war does not make the reason for that declaration in¬ 
fallible. Legislators, kings and presidents have made mis¬ 
takes. Propaganda has the power to turn white into black, 
truth into falsehood. War (vice) “is a monster of such 
hideous mien that to be hated need but be seen; but seen 
too oft, familiar with her face, we first endure, then pity, 
then embrace.” 

The masses should have more direct power to point 
the way of their convictions, and then, I believe, there 
would be no question that the majority would be in favor 
of the repeal of the espionage act. 


SHOULD WE DO AWAY WITH 
ZOOLOGICAL GARDENS? 

“A prison is a house of care , 

A place where none can thrive, 

A touchstone true to try a friend , 

A grave for one alive” 

—Anonymous. 

WILLIAM T. HORNADAY, Director New York Zoo¬ 
logical Park. 

I ENCLOSE herewith a rtlap of the New York Zoologi¬ 
cal Park, which I respectfully file as my answer to your 
question, Should we do away with zoological gardens? 

In view of the popularity of the zoological parks and 
gardens of the United States, I think that your question 
275 


THE WANDERER 

is not open to argument. You might as well ask, Should 
the Rocky Mountain system be abolished ? 

Our two-million-a-year attendance of visitors and the 
6,000,000 taxpayers of New York City all seem to feel 
that whatever may be done elsewhere, the New York Zoo¬ 
logical Park should not be abolished. If any considerable 
number of persons outside the breastworks think otherwise, 
to the people of New York their opinions will be of aca¬ 
demic interest only. 

NELLIE C. WILLIAMS. 

As the thoughts of man are turning more and more to¬ 
wards making this old world a pleasanter place for human 
and sub-human life, the earthly Paradise which our Creator 
intended it should be, there is a movement growing in 
strength and concerted action, for doing away with zoo¬ 
logical exhibits. 

“Oh!” cries some one excitedly, “but they are so instruc¬ 
tive, and all of us, older folks as well as the young, take 
such delight in watching animals and birds!” 

Granted; it is extremely fascinating to see the great 
variety of form, size and color which nature has. given 
to the beasts of the field and the birds of the air, but how 
do those wild things like a caged life? 

Whenever living beings, capable of suffering, are involved, 
our pleasures must be put to the crucial test of how they 
are affected; because they are animals, inferior to us in 
intellect, unable to cope against our superior cunning and 
unable to voice their woes in language we can understand, 
does not make it right for us to trap them in their native 
haunts and confine them behind bars for life, merely for 
the amusement of the careless populace. 

Recently, in the New York Zoo, which is most beautifully 
laid out over a vast expanse of ground, the writer saw 
several South American condors, caged of course, the cages 

276 


THE WANDERER 


were large, comparatively, the birds could fly perhaps 30 
feet high; but what was that for the splendid winged crea¬ 
tures to whom nature has assigned the role of flight in the 
icy air thousands of feet above the sea, from crag to crag 
of the snow-capped Andes ? 

The poor, dejected birds sat there in misery, half their 
plumage fallen off, scratching and tearing at their flesh, suf¬ 
fering from the heat and from insect pests, of which they 
could not rid themselves in confinement. 

It was a most ignoble sight. 

Another point to be considered, is, that zoos are very 
costly; the feeding of the animals and the general upkeep 
amount to huge sums which could be spent to better ad¬ 
vantage in other ways. 

Let each one of us, who believes that the lower orders of 
creation are entitled, just as well as man, to the rights of 
life, liberty and happiness, do our utmost to persuade our 
city fathers and our educators to give up zoos. 

DR. FRANCIS H. ROWLEY, President, American 
Humane Education Society, Boston. 

The zoological garden, in my judgment, means, for the 
majority of the unfortunate captives, little but unhappiness, 
often much suffering. The thoughtful man, who has watched 
some of these prisoners pacing forever back and forth be¬ 
hind their iron bars, must wonder how far we are civilized 
to be able to maintain, with popular complacency, these pri¬ 
son pens for animals caught by the cunning of man and 
taken from their native haunts, where freedom was their 
birthright inheritance. 

Is it because of the educational value of the zoo that it is 
maintained? By pictures children can be taught all that 
it is really necessary for them to know of the creatures 
of the wild and of foreign lands. My personal observation 
is to the effect that the most of the education sought at 
277 


THE WANDERER 


the zoo by the average visitor is in front of the monkeys’ 
cage. If the zoo is championed by any in the name of 
science, then, so far as I am concerned, I do not care for 
any added knowledge gained at the cost of inhumanity and 
pain. There are some things of which mankind may well 
remain in ignorance, if the knowledge of them is to involve 
such cruelties as are associated with the capture, transporta¬ 
tion and long-continued confinement of the animals in 
our zoos. 

When we are quite civilized, if we ever are, the zoo will 
have passed out of existence as one of the relics of our more 
or less barbaric days. 

DR. WILLIAM O. STILLMAN, President, American 
Humane Association, Albany, N. Y. 

‘‘Should we do away with zoological gardens?” On the 
whole, it seems to me that it is just as well that we should 
(leave the wild creatures in their natural environment. 
Many times cruelties are associated with their capture and, 
nearly always, with their transportation. Large numbers of 
them die from unnatural conditions. It amuses, entertains 
and interests a considerable number of people, especially 
children, to watch the animals, birds and reptiles which are 
captured in distant places, but very little good is accom¬ 
plished either for the beast or the public. More informa¬ 
tion could be secured from a good book on natural history 
and it would be far better for the public to wander in the 
fields and woods and make their observations first-hand 
in regard to the “children of the wild” who live there. 

ERNEST F. TRETOW, Director, Pittsburg Zoological 
Park. 

Where we stand with regard to the advisability of doing 
away with zoological gardens is best determined by finding 
out how many are really in existence and by examining their 

278 


THE WANDERER 


attendance records. According to statistics there were in 
1913, 168 zoological gardens in the world; in Europe, 61; 
North America, 57; South America, 14; and the attendance 
seems to be very large indeed. This certainly goes to 
show that the public must be interested. 

Aside from being, as some term it, a luxury, they are 
also of great educational value. Many a professor of 
zoology has taken his pupils to a zoological garden where 
they have learned more in an hour or so than they would 
in days in a class room. 

Almost all of these animals are enemies to man and 
civilization, and they are hunted down and killed, except 
when they are captured for zoological gardens. If some 
were not captured many species would undoubtedly become 
extinct. 

Then there are great numbers of beings born into this 
world every day',' and if some of these animals were not 
preserved, future generations would not have the chance 
to see and study animals at close range. 

People who express the desire to have zoological gardens 
done away with are those, I suppose, who have had the 
chance to see much wild animal life in reality, but these 
people should be broad-minded and liberal and remember 
that every one has not the chance that they have. 

JANETTE L. BOYNTON, Secretary, New York Anti- 
Vivisection Society. 

Humanitarians object to keeping wild animals in cap¬ 
tivity, because they believe that a really human “zoo” is al¬ 
most an impossibility. Conditions in many zoological parks 
do not conform even remotely to the native habitat of many 
wild animals—nor in crowded quarters can the sanitary 
conditions so necessary to their health and comfort be main¬ 
tained, even with intelligent and sympathetic keepers in 
charge. 

“Comfortable” captivity is a mockery, especially for the 
279 


THE WANDERER 

carnivora which are confined in cages—their ferocity mak¬ 
ing the more natural freedom given to other animals, very 
difficult to allow near human habitation. Whenever I visit 
a menagerie or “zoo” and look at the magnificent kings 
of the forest, confined in cages, and remember that their 
native domain is the great forests through which they 
roamed at will, a feeling of intense pity comes over me 
for these unfortunate captives, sentenced to life imprison¬ 
ment, and I ask, “What have they done to deserve so cruel 
a fate?” 

The visitors who frequent the zoological gardens rarely 
ever give a thought to these lonely captives in a foreign 
land, but the soldier who has been taken prisoner in the 
recent war and confined in a prison corral, half-starved by 
men of another Nation in a far away country, may be 
able to appreciate and pity the plight of these unfortunate 
creatures of the zoo. 


SHOULD FOREIGN REPRESENTA¬ 
TIVES BE EXEMPT FROM OUR 
PROHIBITION LAWS? 

When asked what he liked to drink best , he replied: 
“That which belongs to another ” 

—From Diogenes Laetius. 

RAYMOND HITCHCOCK 

I F a man comes to my house and cannot speak English, 
politely greets me in his native tongue, the only language 
he can speak, “Comment vous portez vous,” and I say, 
“Listen to the darn fool, he says ‘Comment vous portez 
vous/ instead of ‘How do you do/ ” I am the fool and not 
the man. 

Therefore, these foreign diplomats are our guests repre- 
280 


THE WANDERER 


senting great nations which cannot think along our lines, and 
the countries they represent, are not under prohibition. 
They have no occasion for prohibition, as drunkenness 
among the working-classes is not a menace to labor. There¬ 
fore the foreign diplomats being our guests, and being 
here for the sole support of maintaining good will between 
nations, should be exempt from legalized morality which 
is not universal. Whisky interfered with the production of 
our country. It was a menace to commerce. It was the 
canker that ate happiness and contentment from many a 
workingman’s home. Therefore, it had to go. I do not 
think there is one of us regrets it—when I say one of us, 
I mean the so-called man of the world, for lack of a better 
term. The man who spends his life in cafes would be 
the first, in my opinion, to scream his head off if prohibition 
should go out of office. It is legalized morality that we 
hate, but the next generation will not miss it, because we 
only do what we know. 

I never drank, because if discovered in a questionable 
place, I preferred to be found there because I wanted to be 
there. And I shall never forget, as a child, the shame I 
felt seeing my father reeling home drunk. Nor will I forget 
my mother in her earnest appeal in prayer to avert this 
cloud that hung over our household. My mother as a girl 
had been rich, and my father squandered everything for 
rum, so I know the effects of drunkenness in the home. 

But here is the all absorbing point—the majority of people 
who drink do not get drunk, not that any one in particular 
has the patent on getting drunk, but simply that conditions 
make it easier for one particular class than another. For 
instance, I belong to about ten clubs. In the 20 years I 
have been a member of these clubs I have seen men whose 
names are well-known all over the country expelled from 
several of these clubs for being drunk. That in itself put 
a check on that class of people, but there is no check on 
the great masses. 


281 


THE WANDERER 
JOHN LIGGETT, JR. 

The argument has been put forward that “the embassy 
is foreign territory, and as such is not subject to the laws 
of the United States.” In that case the Turk could main¬ 
tain his harem and have strangled any wife of whom he had 
grown tired, and (in case the victims were not American 
citizens) the Russians could kill with impunity any few rash 
enough to invade their sacred precinct. The Turk could 
do the same with the Armenian. Would our Government 
stand for things of this sort? If not, then it would mean 
that the foreign embassy is subject to the laws of our 
country, and if subject to any of our laws, should be sub¬ 
ject to them all. 

For the sake of argument we will say the United States 
has no jurisdiction over the foreign legation. It is self- 
evident and beyond dispute that the United States has ab¬ 
solute and supreme jurisdiction over her own possessions, 
an d_now to the main point—this new amendment forbids 
the importation or transportation of intoxicants into or over 
United States territory. The principal foreign legations are 
located in Washington, and before liquors can reach them 
must be transported over United States territory into the 
very seat of our Government. Is the foreigner to be 
granted “privileges and immunity” on our own soil de¬ 
nied the American citizen. If so, why? 

The eighteenth amendment makes no exception to for¬ 
eigners, and emphatically should not. I do not claim the 
foreign representation has not the right to import liquors 
into his own embassy, but only in case the private home of 
the American citizen is also exempt. 

E. J. M’GURTY. 

Foreign diplomatic representatives, as a whole, I believe, 
would be exempt from the new constitutional provision for 
282 


THE WANDERER 

prohibition, as a matter of international law. Whether they 
should be exempt is a question which should be answered 
in the affirmative. 

America in a short time will be a vast Sahara. As a 
matter of public policy, the exemption of foreign repre¬ 
sentatives should be upheld. The provision of a number 
of oases in the National Capital will aid greatly in making 
for an amity between our national solons and peoples of 
Europe through these well-stocked ambassadors. 

Think what a feeling of friendliness will result when 
Senator Sorghum, hot, parched and bone-dry, enters the 
capital fresh from his annual Fourth of July speech in the 
backwoods and finds the German plenipotentiary at the 
National Capital has real undiluted 8 per cent lager. 

Consider how easily the Fiume question may be settled 
satisfactorily to all parties concerned, when our worthy 
law-makers have had opportunity to partake of good old 
Italian wine. If the Irish Republic is to be recognized 
the Irish ambassador will find it to his advantage to come 
in with a well-stocked load of liquor. Its effectiveness will 
be almost miraculous in the new America of prohibition. 

It may be things will come to such a pass that Congress 
will gladly sanction the recognition of the Soviet Republic 
of the Bolsheviks, if only their representative will use 
the proper kind of propaganda. Too much stress has been 
laid on pamphleteering; under the new conditions the 
judicious distribution of good liquor will be much more 
effective. The exemption of foreign representatives ap¬ 
pears to be the one saving element in a generally bad 
situation. 

JOHN MITCHELL VON BRON. 

The people of the United States have said they want 
prohibition, not for part of the people or non-prohibition for 
another group, but prohibition that prohibits. Prohibition 
is a delusion if there are groups who are exempt from 
283 


THE WANDERER 


obeying the law; intoxicating liquor is a greater menace to 
humanity than the anarchists; we deport the anarchists 
and there is no reason why we should deport the lesser 
and leave the greater enemy. 

The United States should be supreme within her own 
territory; she is not supreme if foreign representatives 
may annul our Constitution, make a mockery of the law 
and thwart the expressed wishes of the people. 

The campaign for prohibition is world-wide. Shall this 
Nation lead in this reform or shall we confess here, at 
home, that prohibition is only for our own citizens ? Shall 
we confess that representatives of foreign countries are 
above the law? 

Most certainly, foreign representatives should not be 
exempt from our prohibition laws! The world for pro¬ 
hibition in 1950! 

CHARLES A. POTH. 

Old John Barleycorn and his satellites have been the 
life of our dear old diplomats. What intrigues and secret 
treaties have sprung from the familiarity and good fellow¬ 
ship bred by the flowing bowl. How could the divers 
bedizened military attaches and terpsichorean secretaries in¬ 
dulge in their precious “conversations” were it not for the 
camaraderie of our old friend “booze.” 

Foreign embassies are foreign territory in many senses. 
Custom gives them immunity. Ambassadors may beat their 
wives or board bill, flout a traffic cop, hang out their wash 
over the sidewalk, and be immune. Such infractions of 
the law may bring about an international incident with 
its transfer, but the ambassadorial personage goes at large, 
unscathed. 

Why seek to restrict the thirst of the Minister pleni¬ 
potentiary? Some of these personages may be coloring a 
meerschaum pipe. Are there any cruel enough to de- 
284 


THE WANDERER 


prive them of tobacco? Others may be coloring that por¬ 
tion of his physiognomy which the cultured slightly raise 
in the air when smelling scandal. Why deprive them of 
the wherewithal? 

The American people may patiently submit to restriction 
of meat and drink for their own good, but it would be 
going afar afield if, in their zeal, they should attempt to 
cram their nostrums down the throats of bewhiskered 
and bedizened and duly accredited ambassadors. 

Let them have their drink, but muzzle and seal the 
mouth of every American who may have business in the 
Foreign Embassy so that not one drop of the contaminating 
concoction shall go down his throat. 


WHAT ARE THE CAUSES OF 
STRIKES? 

The Wanderer sent this question to Eugene V. Debs. 
His brother , Theodore Debs, sent this answer: 

(f Your more than kind letter to my brother, with its 
enclosure, has just come to me through the hands of the 
prison warden. Under prison rules my brother is not 
allowed to send out anything for publication, not that 
he has not time to prepare the copy, for he is locked in 
his cell daily 14 consecutive hours, from 5 o’clock in the 
evening until 7 o’clock the next morning, but the rules 
restrict his writing privilege to one letter per week on 
a single sheet, and that to his family. If this were not 
the case my brother would be more than happy to com¬ 
ply with your wishes in the matter of an article. Gene 
wishes me to send you his warmest thanks and his sin¬ 
cere appreciation for your kindly interest in his incar¬ 
ceration. The cuttings he read, / assure you, with very 
much interest. He trusts that he may some day have 
the pleasure of meeting you in person, that he may tell 
you how deeply your kindness touched and warmed his 
heart. With all good wishes, and regretting that Gene 
cannot comply with your request , sincerely yours, 

“Theodore Debs.” 

285 


THE WANDERER 


ROSE PASTOR STOKES. 

T HE cause of the strikes. The surface causes are many 
and varying with each case; the fundamental cause is 
the class antagonisms that will be eradicated only when land 
and industry are socialized and the workers industrially 
self-determined; that is, when the new industrial society 
establishes the universal necessity to serve and the equal 
opportunity to share in industry, thus abolishing classes. 
Strikes will continue to increase in strength, in number 
and in synchronization until the great revolution in land 
and industry is accomplished, and its coming is as inevitable 
as the tides. Those bourgeois elements who have any wis¬ 
dom might do well to place themselves on the side of the 
inevitable change. Better useful service compensated with 
comfort and security in the new order, than non-productive 
service with feverish fortunes and insecure existence in 
the old order. But one might as well ask water to run 
up hill. 


CLARENCE E. MARTIN, Vice-President, Pennsylvania 

State Federation of Labor, and Business Representative 
of the International Association of Machinists, 
District No. 6. 

I can best answer this question by relating the cause of 
a strike that occurred recently in the Pittsburg district, 
which I think is not an exceptional case, but a situation 
that obtains in most of our manufacturing plants. 

In this particular case, the employes had become dissatis¬ 
fied with the conditions that prevailed in the shop, and 
they elected a committee to wait upon the management. 
This autocratic gentleman in the person of the general 
manager immediately discharged the entire committee with¬ 
out giving them a chance to be heard. 

This high-handed procedure resulted in a strike involving 
1,400 men and lasted for five weeks. 

286 


THE WANDERER 


Another case that happened recently was the discharge 
of numbers of employes for no other reason than that they 
had joined labor unions affiliated with the American Fed¬ 
eration of Labor. That no strike has occurred in this 
plant is no fault of the officials in charge. 

Cases of this kind are numerous, and any organizer of 
labor will bear me out when I say that 90 per cent of the 
strikes tnat occur can be charged to the employers, on 
account of their autocratic methods in dealing with their 
employes. But if you think that this source of information 
might be biased, interview any representative of the Penn¬ 
sylvania Department of Labor and Industry or the United 
States Department of Labor, and you will find that most 
of these are of the same opinion. 

ROBERT H. BEECH. 

The main cause of strikes is progress, and a general 
movement towards an equalness of opportunity for the 
people of the world. While people are by no means free, 
still the conditions of the workingman are improving year 
by year, and this improvement is mainly won by strikes. 
Most of the great strikes have been economic failures and 
it has only been the effect of the strike that has tended to 
make conditions better for all. The employer, the capitalist, 
the professor, the politician, all struggle and use every 
effort to make conditions better for themselves, and can we 
condemn the workingman for having the same aspira¬ 
tions as those who are higher up in the social development. 
In the past, when men were more oppressed, and more down 
trodden than they are now, it was harder for the strikers 
to form their unions and to oppose those in authority. But 
now, brought to a crisis by the war, the workingman is com¬ 
ing to the front and is claiming rights as his own, and it 
is only those who are blinded by the wish not to see, that 
do not realize that the day of the proletariat is at hand. 

287 


THE WANDERER 


Whether the strike is the best way for the workingman 
to gain his ends or not is a question, for those who know 
the history of strikes, know that the majority of them have 
failed as far as the workingmen have been concerned. 
Arbitration seems the logical way of adjusting things, but 
we all know after having seen this war that the humans 
are farther away from arbitration than they were in the 
Middle Ages. 

Abraham Lincoln said, “No man is good enough to govern 
another man without that other’s consent.” This not only 
means that the employer has no right to dominate his men 
against their will, but it also means that the workingmen 
do not possess all the right to have all the say as to what 
the actions of the employer shall be. 


WHY DOES A DOG WAG ITS TAIL? 

He was sitting on a doorstep as 1 went strolling by: 

A lonely little beggar with a wistful, homesick eye — 
And he wasn't what you'd borrow 
And he wasn't what you'd steal — 

But I guessed his heart was breaking. 

So I whistled him to heel . 

Yellow dog he was: but bless you—he was just the chap 
for me! 

For I'd rather have an inch of dog than miles of pedi¬ 
gree. 

So we stole away together on the road that has no end 
With the new-coined day to fling away and all the stars 
to spend . 

—Dana Burnet. 

The Wanderer wishes to extend thanks to John S. 
Ritenour, superintendent of the Western Pennsylvania 
Humane Society and lover of all dumb beasts, to whom 
The Wanderer is indebted for this entire symposium. 

288 


THE WANDERER 


BOOTH TARKINGTON. 

A DOG does not know that he wags his tail. If, when 
^ wagging his tail, he saw it wagging, he would be rather 
surprised and interested. I mean to say that he never 
intentionally wags his tail. The action is a result; not an 
end, however. It is the result of emotion; usually of pleas¬ 
urable emotion—but not invariably. 

There are times when a dog wishes hypocritically to 
counterfeit a pleasurable emotion; and he pretends to him¬ 
self (in order to deceive others) that he is feeling such 
emotion, but even then he does not know that his tail is 
wagging. In other words, a dog is occupied with his sensa¬ 
tions and emotions but is not a student of their expres¬ 
sion. He is so far from this, in fact, that he has no idea of 
his own appearance; many dogs are even unaware that 
they are dogs. They never happen to think about it. 

To sum up, a dog does not wag his tail from motive. 
In order to be quite clear let us suppose that you asked 
a dog, “Why do you wag your tail ?” And let us suppose 
that you were able to make him comprehend your question. 
His response would be: 

“Good heavens! Do I?” 

GEORGE ARLISS. 

Why does a dog wag his tail? Primarily, I suppose, 
because the dog is a dear demonstrative creature and is 
anxious to convey his feelings to his somewhat dull and un¬ 
observant friend man. 

But how—in what way—does a dog wag its tail? That 
is an interesting study. We know why the conductor of 
an orchestra wags his baton; but if we wish to find out 
what emotion he is trying to create we must observe how 
he wags his baton. That’s just how it is with the dog. 
His tail is his baton. 

There is the rapid, unmistakable wag that denotes pleas- 
289 


THE WANDERER 

ure. But there is also the less assured, or syncopated 
wag, that denotes uncertainty, and tells of an effort to un¬ 
derstand your exact meaning. There is the slow, straight, 
regular wag that denotes mistrust. And there is the no 
wag at all, that denotes misery and despair. 

Pull the hair over the eyes of any of our leading actors 
and I defy them to express in silence the varying emotions 
that are expressed by the tail of a dog. 

ALBERT PAYSON TERHUNE, Author of “Lad: a 
Log.” 

He wags it because he is happy. Why is he happy? He 
alone knows. He would seem to have little enough to 
make him so. 

At best, he has food and lodging, of a sort, for a pitifully 
brief span of years; years in which he is the victim of 
every human whim and cruelty, and is in hourly danger 
from mad-dog mobs and motor cars and a hundred other 
perils. This, at best. 

At worst, he has all these things to contend with ; and is 
kicked, beaten, neglected, starved, tortured by thirst and 
vivisected. 

All he asks or cares for is the privilege of being near 
the man or woman he has accepted as his idol; to suffer 
any discomfort, if only he may be close to his chosen 
deity. He knows no better than to be loyal and forgiving 
and eternally trustful; in spite of countless experiences in 
the folly of such virtues. 

Yet he is happy. That is why he wags his tail. God 
help him!. 

DR. W. A. ROBINSON. 

Why is a log in the road like a dead dog’s tail ? It stops 
a wagon, and who can tell how much depends upon the 
wagon or the waggin’ goin’ on? 

Emotion requires motion. The dog is the only one who 
290 


THE WANDERER 


has a right to wag it. Should any outsider attempt to wag it 
for him, whether dog or man, there’ll be something doing. 
It’s his way of shaking hands, “Glad to see you!” 

It's his flag of truce—beware of the dog that wags not! 
It proclaims his willingness to join a league of dog nations. 
He wags it because every dog is more or less of a wag. 
It is to fend against a rear approach. It is a proclamation 
of courage; a drooping tail is a defeated tail. It is a 
declaration of innocence—a guilty dog wags not. 

Doggoned if I know any other reason except, “Our 
old cow she crossed the road, because she crossed the 
road, sir. And the reason why she crossed the road is 
because she crossed the road, sir.” 

KATHERINE S. NICHOLSON, “The Starry Cross.” 

Why should the dog, alone, of all the many animals 
possessing tails, utilize his as a means of expression? Why 
can’t the depths of his big, beautiful, speaking eyes, tell 
it all? Or his persuasive paw? Or his eagerly wriggling 
body? As the dog can’t tell us, let’s hazard a guess. 

Isn’t it because he is so full of love, and fidelity, and 
gratitude, and a host of other human feelings, that he just 
has to use every possible means of making them known? 
And doesn’t his “most vocal tail,” as Bishop Doane aptly 
calls it, do all to perfection? And just think, it is this same 
dog, so alive to the finer sentiments, so keenly sensitive, 
that we allow to wander homeless and hungry, or hand 
over to be vivisected, the most diabolical form of torture 
possible. Isn’t it time we caused this thing to be pro¬ 
hibited ? 

H. L. ROBERTS, Secretary-Superintendent, the Anti- 
Cruelty Society of Chicago. 

Why doe's a dog wag his tail ? Why, to tell you things, of 
course. Any man that has ever owned a dog knows that. 

Some years ago I remember seeing the play, “Two Or- 
291 


THE WANDERER 

phans,” in which one of the characters talked to his pet 
dog. In the course of a monologue he says, Oh, my friend, 
if all tails were tongues, what a story you could telL ,, 

Perhaps it is fortunate for many of us that our dogs 
cannot talk. Still, I don’t know. Dogs, you know, are 
loyal, true, always. They love their masters with a love 
that is not influenced by the benefits they receive. Their 
station in life, social or financial conditions, have no in¬ 
fluence on the animal rightly called “man’s best friend.” 
They love you because it’s you. This fact is one of the 
best arguments against the theory of total depravity. 

In the course of over 25 years’ experience in anti¬ 
cruelty and animal rescue work, I have frequently known 
dogs to be absolutely faithful to masters who, as far as 
I could see, did not have one redeeming feature in their 
make-up, but I know they must have had some good in 
them, because their dogs loved them. 

If you do not believe that a dog talks with his tail, 
or expresses his feelings by the way he uses it, if you 
prefer the statement in that form, just watch it. See 
that Collie escorting his little mistress or master to school, 
or for a walk. Note how proudly he carries his tail. 
Does he not say as plainly as possible, “I am in charge 
here, and you had better let that child alone” ? 

Speak to a lost dog “with his tail tucked in,” and watch 
him tell you with a friendly wag, how glad he is to meet 
you. Of course, a dog wags his tail to talk to you. If 
you own a dog you know this. If you do not you had 
better get one. They give the kind of love and service 
that money cannot buy. 

THE GOWNSMAN, Philadelphia, Evening Ledger 

A dog wags his tail? Well, if you must have it—a dog 
wags his tail for precisely the same reason that a woman 
wags her tongue. Both members are what Shakespeare 
called “tickle o’ the sere,” that is, quick on the trigger, 
292 


THE WANDERER 


readily responsive, easily set in motion—and not always 
so easily brought to motionless inquietude. There be dogs 
that will wag on the slightest provocation, for anybody, 
or anything. Such have a welcome for the market boy 
and for the burglar alike, and they cow before big dogs 
and waggle only to show off before little ones. 

The tail is the dog’s index of expression and as such 
properly comes last. What is so expressive as the bedrag¬ 
gled, lowered, shivering tail of a dog tramp? Or what 
can be more significant than the taut, upright tail of 
assured respectability, swayed decorously to and fro, and 
with dignity. 

Toby was the best dog that The Gownsman ever knew. 
And when he lay suffering on his death-bed of straw, his 
lamenting family about him, he wagged a swaying, then 
a quivering, at last only a pulsating tail until his true heart 
ceased to beat. Here was an eloquence, a grateful tribute 
of love and friendship, above words. 

FRANK B. RUTHERFORD. 

A dog wags its tail because of a hereditary propensity 
derived from its parents, acquired through association with 
mankind. The wag is indicative of love, friendship, hap¬ 
piness and joy. An attempt to hold conversation is also 
indicated by the movement of the tail, expression of the 
eyes and carriage of the ears. 

In addition, if you should look severe or frown at your 
dog, you will note a doubtful movement of the tail, and 
at the same time the ears will droop. The writer has ob¬ 
served one dog that, when reprimanded, actually cried aloud 
and shed tears. 

If afterwards you look pleased the dog’s tail will wag 
joyfully in recognition of your changed expression. 

He was only a tramp of the “board yard” breed, 

With no pedigree or style, 

293 


THE WANDERER 

But his eyes were bright, like the stars at night, 

On his face there was a smile. 

So I stopped and patted his uneven coat 
Of yellow and black and tan— 

And in a sort of way he seemed to say— 

“You’re just the right sort of a man.” 

So he followed me home, ’twas over a mile, 

Right up to the very gate. 

Did I let him in ? Well, I should grin, 

I didn’t even hesitate. 

I gave him some milk, and some crackers too. 

And made him a nice little bed. 

Mom and I love the pup, and we won’t give him up. 
And to-morrow we’ll christen him Ned. 


ARE THE MINISTERS MORE MUZ¬ 
ZLED THAN THE EDITORS? 


What man in public life is not more or less muzzledP 
So the question cannot be “Is the editor or minister 
muzzled?” but which is the more muzzled? 


WILLIAM JOHNSTON, Sunday Editor, New York 
World . 

A RE the ministers more muzzled than the editors? 

Of course they are. 

The minute the collection plate is passed the muzzling of 
the minister begins. The man who puts in a $10 bill ex¬ 
pects more consideration for his opinions than the one 
who gives 25 cents. Ministers are only human, so most 
of them are muzzled by the collection plate. 

Nobody takes up any collections for editors . 

294 


THE WANDERER 


Secondly, ministers are muzzled by creed and dogma. If 
their church decides to accept the story of Methusalah’s 
age and the whale episode, they’ve got to say amen or 
get out. 

Editors have no creed. 

Thirdly, most ministers are muzzled by poverty. With 
a wife and children and a pitifully small salary, few of 
them dare say what they really think for fear of losing 
their jobs and their standing. No matter if their salary 
remains unpaid ministers are expected to pay their debts 
and stay honest. 

Nobody thinks an editor is honest anyhow . 

REV. LUTHER FREEMAN, Emory Methodist Church, 
Pittsburg. 

I object to the phraseology of this-question. It implies 
that both editors and ministers are “muzzled/’ and that your 
question seeks merely to determine the degree of the muz¬ 
zling. 

I have never been an editor and I have little intimate 
acquaintance with the relationship between the desk of 
the manager and the sanctum. At times the harmony 
between the editorial columns and the advertising pages has 
seemed to me indicative of something more than a mere 
coincidence. Of course, a “dry” editorial and a full page 
“ad” of booze would strike one as a bit incongruous. I 
have sometimes wondered how it happened that an editor’s 
political convictions were totally transformed when he 
accepted employment on the opposing paper. However, 
on this matter I pass no judgment. 

I think I know a little about the preacher. The preacher 
is not set for the defense or propagation of certain social, 
political or theological tenets. He is a voice, not an echo. 
He is a prophet, not a partisan. He is a leader, not a 
mouthpiece. A congregation in a modern cosmopolitan 

295 


THE WANDERER 


city represents many phases of thought. People frequently 
find themselves at variance with the position of the pulpit. 
The intelligent layman asks for sincerity, intelligence and 
deep moral earnestness in hL minister. Pie does not ask 
him to voice the layman’s ideas. I know no more unpopular 
type of preacher than the man suspected of being a 
“trimmer.” Sometimes laymen leave a congregation be¬ 
cause they find themselves at variance with the minister. 
Sometimes a minister feels that he is so out of harmony 
with the general spirit of a congregation that he seeks a new 
parish. General sympathy and fundamental harmony is 
essential to his happiness and the effectiveness of his work. 
The notion that ministers believe many things that they 
do not dare to preach and do not believe many things 
that they either preach or imply, I believe to be wide of 
the truth. An editorial writer said to me, when I asked 
him why he did not treat more frankly certain questions, 
“You would understand if you knew how frequently my 
editorials are scrapped by the management.” The preachers 
of my intimate acquaintance speak their profoundest con¬ 
victions with utmost frankness. 

ALEXANDER P. MOORE, Editor, Pittsburg Leader. 

I know of no editors that are muzzled, as the only 
editor I know real well is myself. I do believe that if 
there is a muzzled editor, that it is circumstance that 
muzzled him and not his own desires. At this time the 
world is asking for absolute freedom, and naturally I 
believe that any man would sooner be free than a slave. 

A real editor could never be muzzled—there may be 
men who have that title, but after all they are only mega¬ 
phones or phonographs. An* editor to be thoroughly in¬ 
dependent has to be absolutely willing to give up all am¬ 
bitions with the single exception of wanting to be an. 
editor. 


296 


THE WANDERER 


The trouble with the term editor is that it is confusing. 
Many times the real editor of a paper is not known. Of 
course, after all, this particular individual is not an editor 
in the true sense, but he dictates policy, and consequently 
he is speaking as an editor. My own belief is that any 
man who is a real newspaper man and who is an editor in 
his heart as well as on his letter-head will insist on being 
absolutely free. 

The editor has more opportunity to be unmuzzled than 
the preacher, for the general reason that the editor is not 
depending upon a salary which is collected from his parish¬ 
ioners, who may in many cases think that they are giving 
him a present instead of paying him for work he has 
performed. 

I have pity for a minister who is muzzled, but I have 
nothing but contempt for an editor who is muzzled. My 
belief is that both the editor and the preacher are getting 
better every day, and that is because every day it is getting 
harder and harder to fool the public. 

DR. WYATT BROWN, Rector, Ascension Episcopal 
Church, Pittsburg. 

Many ministers have considered themselves muzzled. 
The session or vestry which called them stood sponsor to 
the congregation for them and did promise and vow three 
things in their name: First, that they would renounce the 
Socialist and all his works; secondly, that they would 
believe all the articles of the capitalistic faith, and, thirdly, 
that they would keep the commandments of plutocracy and 
walk in the same all the days of their life. Novelists, 
like the author of the “Inside of the Cup,” back this and 
impress this opinion on the public mind. The minister who 
considers his message checked and the novelist who heroizes 
the flayer of greedy church wardens may be right. I do 
not doubt that there are as many narrow-minded, “bossy” 

297 


THE WANDERER 

people in the front pews as there are in the pulpits of our 
land. 

But in my own ministry of io years, spent among all 
sorts and conditions of men, I have never felt constrained 
to say that which I did not believe to be true, nor have I 
refrained from the truth if I thought it needed to be said. 
The Gospel of Christ is redeeming the whole world, slowly, 
century by century. The Gospel of a living, present, 
miracle-working Savior is gradually leavening the human 
lump with justice, toleration, righteousness and brother¬ 
hood. Few earnest men possessed by a living Christ can 
be muzzled in proclaiming the Kingdom of God. Few 
earnest laymen would muzzle their prophets even if they 
could. “Isms,” man-made theories about which all men 
differ, economic remedies in detail, sensationalism of vari¬ 
ous types—these cause chasms between pulpit and pew. For 
the most part the clergyman is free to seek his revelation 
and tell it, or so at least is my opinion. As for the editor, 
I dare not speak. I know so little of him except from the 
outside looking in. Certainly, however, I would never 
admit that the priest is more subservient to mammon than 
the scribe. 


HUGH THOMSON KERR, D. D., Shadyside Presby¬ 
terian Church, Pittsburg. 

By this query the editor suggests that he is muzzled. 
Perhaps he is. At least he ought to be, and some of us 
wish that some of our editors were more muzzled than 
they are. 

We are puzzled because they are not muzzled. We 
muzzle mad and vicious dogs, and mad and vicious editors 
should receive the same treatment. 

We thank God that our American editors as a class are 
sane and sensible, and I see no reason why they should 

298 


THE WANDERER 


be muzzled save as loyalty to God and charity to men teach 
all men every now and then to hold their tongue, knowing 
that “five words cost Zacharias 40 weeks’ silence.” Decency, 
patriotism, veracity, charity and loyalty to the things that are 
honest and of good report should muzzle all men, editors 
and ministers alike, who make and guide the public opinion 
of the Nation. 

As for the ministers, I wish some of us could by the laws 
of loyalty be muzzled more than we are. I would, if 
I could, put a muzzle upon all ministers who give de¬ 
liverances concerning things upon which they have no au¬ 
thority to speak. Men who preach have been licensed to 
preach the Gospel. The only muzzle I know a true preacher 
wears is loyalty to that commission. Loyalty to God and 
love to men will put obvious limitations upon a true minister, 
but in the words of Lord Acton, “Mastery is achieved by 
resolved limitation.” 

If the editor suggests that wealth or social etiquette, or 
political expediency, or selfish concern as to position, place 
or preferment may place a muzzle upon the prophet of 
God, I would say that if the man of God should submit 
to such restrictions, he has forfeited his commission and 
is apostate. Still as of old the man of God replies to all 
such suggestions: “Whether it be right in the sight of 
God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye; 
for we cannot but speak the things which we have seen 
and heard.” 

Such a course calls for courage and heroism and some¬ 
times martyrdom. It is still true that the church and the 
world often kill the prophets and stone those who are 
sent unto them, but the glory of the Protestant church 
with all its separated and federated denominations is that 
it is free. 


299 


THE WANDERER 


SHOULD ALIEN RADICALS BE 
DEPORTED? 

“They hanged the poor lady , and 1 threw a stone at 
her s although in my heart / was sorry for her; but all 
were throwing stones and each one was watching his 
neighbor, and if I had not done as the others did it 
would have been noticed and spoken of 

—Mark Twain in “The Mysterious Stranger.” 

M. CLYDE KELLY, House of Representatives. 

I UNDERSTAND by “alien radical” those aliens in this 
country who desire to overthrow the present form of gov¬ 
ernment, uproot society, and substitute the Bolshevism of 
Lenine and Trotzky. 

No real American could hesitate a moment in answering 
with an emphatic “Yes” the question as to whether such 
enemies should be deported. 

Such aliens are like the viper in the fable, which was 
warmed and nourished at the fireside of the husbandman 
and then proceeded to bite its benefactor. 

I have now pending in Congress a measure to make 
sure that these alien slackers shall be deported and also- 
that every alien admitted for permanent residence in the 
future shall come here solely for the purpose of becoming 
an American citizen. He must promise that upon his admis¬ 
sion and also that he will learn the language of America 
and study its institutions and obey its laws. He must 
register once each year in the county where he resides. If 
he breaks any of these promises he shall be immediately 
deported. 

The passage of this measure would do much toward mak¬ 
ing America one Nation, with one people and one flag. 
The searchlight of the world war showed us the danger 

300 


THE WANDERER 


of divisions and distinct national groups in this country. 
No alien should be admitted in the future save for the 
country’s good. 

I believe in Americanizing every stranger here who de¬ 
sires to be Americanized. But those who deliberately as¬ 
sail Americanism, who preach defiance of law and the 
overthrow of American institutions deserve no considera¬ 
tion. They are deformed in heart. Flints may be melted 
but not all the fires of Americanism can melt such un¬ 
grateful hearts as these. 

We welcomed their coming with open hand. We should 
speed their going with closed fist. 

DEVERE ALLEN, Editor, Young Democracy. 

Americans have long been proud because their country 
has been conspicuous in the sight of the world as an 
asylum for those whose political heresies have rendered 
them personae non gratae to the ruling powers of other 
lands. To the subjects of foreign tyrannies, America has 
been the land of hope and freedom, where men were at 
liberty to worship, dream and work according to the dic¬ 
tates of their reason, and carry on the pioneer thinking 
that is essential to any process of human liberation. 

If we are definitely committed to a policy of deporting 
alien radicals, let us frankly face the fact that it is a thor¬ 
oughly un-American procedure, and let us admit that we 
have been forced to maintain our institutions just as they 
are, world without end, by the same methods that have 
ever been the European practice. It is somewhat disquieting 
to observe that in Europe this method has not been effica¬ 
cious. Radical policies have won out, notwithstanding 
persecution, imprisonment and exile. 

In any case, the deportation of aliens for the sole rea¬ 
son that they are outspoken and aggressive in their criticism 
of our institutions is one of the ways in which it is pos¬ 
sible to cut off our nose to spite our face. Our outraged 

301 


THE WANDERER 

pride and excessive timidity have thus deprived us of the 
exceedingly useful spirit of fearless inquiry that is the 
method of all sound social progress. 

HENRY BRODY. 

A question of this kind can be correctly solved only 
by viewing it from the standpoint of the good of society 
and not from the standpoint of the rights of the individ¬ 
ual. The social organism can thrive only when free from 
all destructive elements; just as the individual organism 
can remain in a state of health only when free from all 
foreign germs. Of course, if we view it from the stand¬ 
point of the germ, it has the right to live and to live on any 
organism it sees fit to attack (and that in substance is the 
plea of all alien radicals), but the organism has an equal 
right to expel or destroy the germ. And what is more, it 
not only has the right, but it is its duty to do so. 

An alien radical who is out of harmony and sympathy 
with all our institutions, social, political and religious, 
should not be tolerated in our midst longer than is necessary 
to ascertain the fact that he is an alien radical. But, when 
once that fact is established, then away with him to such a 
community as shares or approves his views. There let him 
put into practice and test his ideas and see whether a social 
order established according to those views can long endure. 

Then, after this new structure of his has been erected 
and as “time tried and fire tested,” then may we, if we 
choose, remodel ours after his. But he has no right to force 
this reconstruction upon us. If he insists on doing that he 
must leave, and if he does not leave voluntarily then he 
should be handed his passports and be escorted to our por¬ 
tals. 

FRANK FOLSOM. 

Yes, and we shouldn’t be exclusive; why not include the 
native variety, also? Not only should we deport foreign 
anarchists, but our parlor Bolshevists should be compelled 

302 


THE WANDERER 


to accompany them. If necessary, an island should be pur¬ 
chased, far out of the regular trade routes, where these 
wild-eyed citizens could make a home, but from which they 
would be unable to depart. Like “The Man Without a 
Country,” they should have no means of communication 
with the outside world, but devote their whole attention to 
the formation of a community in accordance with their own 
doctrines. 

If radicals believe the doctrines they preach, why do they 
stay here with a lot of unsympathetic, law-abiding people? 
Surely in Russia, where all the laws of God and man are 
totally disregarded, where religion has been abandoned, and 
where right makes might, our gentle anarchists should be 
supremely happy. They have preached free love—both 
men and women—yet they continue to lurk here, where a 
jail sentence threatens them if they put their ideas into prac¬ 
tice, while the Lenine-Trotzky regime offers them absolute 
freedom. They rail against the capitalist mill owners who 
compel them to work long hours, while in Russia you may 
suit yourself in this regard. Is it possible they permit such 
mundane affairs as food and clothing to weigh in the bal¬ 
ance against the attainment of an ideal ? 

Once we are rid of these undesirable citizens let us close 
our gates against them in the future, otherwise, the next 
generation may see our beloved country turned into sham¬ 
bles as Russia to-day. We have paid our debt to the old 
world, now let us pay our debt to the new by taking up the 
herculean task of refining the contents of the melting pot, 
separating the pure metal from the dross, and, following 
the practice of the steel makers with high-grade steel, per¬ 
mit no more scrap material of dubious ancestry and doubt¬ 
ful quality to be added to the mixture. 

MORRIS GEBELOW. 

The laws of the United States are presumably adequate to 
cope with all transgressors in its heterogeneous population, 

303 


THE WANDERER 


whether alien or native. To extradite a foreigner because 
of his social philosophy is a shamed-faced admission of na¬ 
tional weakness. There are those among us who believe 
that, notwithstanding the echoes of revolution from Eastern 
Europe, America has no reason to become panicky. Let 
those who preach new ideas-—alien ideas, if you will—re¬ 
main with us. If the established order, with its century- 
old traditions and innumerable barricades, cannot withstand 
a verbal assault, then that society is a worthless house of 
cards. 

This country is traditionally the asylum for political ref¬ 
ugees. It had its genesis in political dissension, has har¬ 
bored revolutionists from all lands, from some of the fa¬ 
thers of our country down to Garibaldi, Trotzky and De 
Valera. The tradition of broad-minded, open-armed toler¬ 
ance is the brightest jewel in our national crown. We must 
not permit conscience-stricken hoarders of money-power to 
pluck the gem. 

The radical is admittedly a menace to society—that is, the 
society of to-day. Those who sport the reins of the present 
regime quite naturally seek to destroy the assailants. How¬ 
ever, they are not puerile enough to believe that the exile of 
a handful of agitators will calm unrest. No, the deporta¬ 
tion statutes have a deeper use; they serve as a whip over 
all alien workers. 

Unless America gives her newcomers greater right to 
think as they please, it stands convicted of insincerity. The 
combined efforts of ship companies, tourists, labor contrac¬ 
tors, have spread through the world news of an exagger¬ 
atedly free America. It is in their reliance upon this ad¬ 
vertising that simple folk have destroyed their old homes 
beyond resurrection. They come for promised opportuni¬ 
ties, the larger freedom. And they found an industrial ar¬ 
rangement as rigidly autocratic as any in the world. They 
found their right to think and speak freely a meaningless 
304 


THE WANDERER 

myth so soon as those thoughts or words were deemed “un- 
American”—by Americans. 

Is it strange, under these circumstances, that the mass of 
aliens feel that they have been lured here by false prom¬ 
ises? Let us be fair and stick by our side of the bargain. 
They invest their brawn, which is their all, in our land. It 
behooves us, in return, to let them think unhampered. Rea¬ 
son is safer policy (and in this instance an unavoidable 
duty) than coercion. 

Americanization is a failure unless it is reciprocal. Bo¬ 
hemians need to be Americanized—and Americans need to 
be Bohemianized. Let us profit by the good traits of our 
aliens. Deportation is medieval, narrow and conducive to 
increased unrest. 

FRANK W. GARRISON. 

The costs of the war include not only the physical de¬ 
struction but a perversion of moral standards which threat¬ 
ens our tottering civilization with final collapse. Epithets 
proved so effective in stimulating hatred against our foreign 
enemies that they are being freely used to defame the critics 
of the discredited old regime. To be a radical is danger¬ 
ous, but to be an alien as well is to be marked for destruc¬ 
tion. 

The inhuman laws under which the deportation of aliens 
is carried out reflect discredit upon us all, and we cannot 
shift the whole blame upon officials who have become servile 
instruments of oppression. We must realize that no laws 
are morally valid which deny free access to natural resources 
or which prevent the free exchange of goods or the free 
movement of human beings over the face of the earth. Na¬ 
tional boundaries proclaim the triumph of might, and our 
treatment of aliens confirms it. 

If we are to disarm the revolution, we must cancel at 
once all legal privileges and acknowledge the equal rights of 

305 


THE WANDERER 

all men to live and to act in freedom. To-morrow it will be 
too late. 


WHERE IS THE KINGDOM OF 
HEAVEN? 

The belief as to the whereabouts of the Kingdom of 
Heaven is different in each human heart. The follow¬ 
ing give their opinion as to where that Kingdom is: 

REV. A. J. BONSALL 

W HEN the Pharisees asked Jesus when the kingdom of 
God—or the kingdom of heaven, the terms are inter¬ 
changeable—should appear, he said: “It cometh not as 
you hope to catch a sight of it; for, lo! the kingdom of 
God is within you—or in the midst of you.” More and 
more students of the New Testament are inclined towards 
the latter interpretation. In either case the kingdom is 
among men. Where, then, can it be but in the hearts that 
are submissive to God, the lives that are governed by His 
will? 

This is the good news—the gospel of the kingdom that 
it is not far off in time or place, but is in the world growing 
as a tree grows, leavening as yeast leavens; to be seen by the 
single-eyed, to be discovered by the seeker, to be obtained by 
him who is willing to pay its price. The kingdom has a 
subject in the man or woman who has learned the lesson of 
loving service. The mother who spends her strength in 
patient ministries, the toiler who bears his burdens bravely, 
the sufferer who endures with cheerfulness, through trust 
in God’s goodness and care, these are of its high nobility. 
They live in our homes, they walk our streets, they fight 
our battles, they reveal to us the divinity in humanity. 
The kingdom of heaven is the treasure of the humble, the 
strength of the mighty, the adornment of the beautiful. 

306 


THE WANDERER 


REV. R. H. BUMRY. 

The same question was asked of the Jews, when Christ 
answered by saying, “The Kingdom of God cometh not 
with observation, for behold the Kingdom of God is with 
you.” In the seven parables of Matt, xiii, Jesus presents 
the kingdom in terms of action rather than being. He repre¬ 
sents it as an activity rather than an entity, as a procedure 
rather than a thing. He likens it to that which takes 
place rather than that which simply exists. Verbally and 
grammatically, to be sure, He likens it to a person or a 
thing—a sower, a grain of mustard seed, leaven, treasure, 
a merchant, a dragnet. But in the actual thought He does 
not liken it to any of these, but to something done by them 
or in connection with them. In every instance the heart 
of the parable is to be found in the activity described. The 
reign of God is the divine administration for the accom¬ 
plishment of the divine purpose; in its very nature it is 
activity rather than institution or place. It is spiritual in 
its nature, universal in its activities; objectively, without 
respect to time, persons or place. 

DR. JOHN M. MECKLIN. 

In answering this question we must first remind ourselves 
of the fact that to make an idea clear we tend to limit it 
in space and time. For what is not localized somewhere in 
a spatial or temporal continuum is for the human mind 
unthinkable and therefore unreal. 

It follows therefore that the reply any age gives to the 
query “Where Is the Kingdom of Heaven?” will depend 
upon the prevailing ideas of time and space. Of old-time 
men conceived of the earth as the fixed center of the uni¬ 
verse, spanned by the heavenly vault, and with a definite 
beginning in time. The learned Dr. Lightfoot (1602-1675), 
following Eusebius’ and Usher’s interpretation of the sacred 

307 


THE WANDERER 


chronology, reckoned that the world and man were “created 
by the Trinity on October 23, 4004 B. C., at 9 o’clock in the 
morning.” Within this fixed and limited temporal and 
spatial scheme heaven and hell were definitely localized, 
the latter below in a lake of unquenchable fire, the former 
above in the celestial city of the New Jerusalem. 

The Copernican astronomy and Galileo’s telescope re¬ 
vealed the infinite reaches of the inter-stellar spaces. Rocks 
and fossils disclosed the infinite lapses of geologic time. 
The old spatial and temporal setting was completely dis¬ 
credited. Heaven and hell change places every 24 hours 
Recorded history is found to span hardly more than seven 
seconds on the dial of the cosmic day. Darwin’s “Origin 
of Species” (1859) and the spread of evolution taught us 
to think of reality as a process, the Kingdom of Heaven as 
a growth like the leaven in the measure of meal. Finally 
the rise of psychology has taught us to see in the soul 
processes, the subjective organizations of sentiments re¬ 
flected in action, the ultimate measure of religious verities. 
Thus do the development of science and the march of hu¬ 
man experience tend to confirm the dictum of the Great 
Teacher, “The Kingdom of God is within you.” 

ANDREW G. SMITH, President Pittsburg Rationalist 
Society. 

According to Mark Twain’s “Captain Stormfield,” the 
captain was about 50 years reaching heaven, whizzing 
through space at a rate of 1,000,000 miles a second. He 
describes the earthly section of heaven as geographically 
like our earth, only each State and country is a million 
times larger. Stormfield found heaven up to expectations 
for music, amusements, aviation (with wings), etc., but 
as the population of heaven has been accumulating for bil¬ 
lions of years, he found but few white angels and fewer 
still who could speak his language. Many times the captain 
308 


THE WANDERER 

was so lonesome for companions that he wished he had 
never died. 

The Old Testament neither allures with heaven, nor terri¬ 
fies with hell. Belief in the immortality of the soul was 
not a part of the religion of the Biblical Jews. “As the 
cloud is consumed and vanisheth away, so he that goeth 
down to the grave shall come up no more.”—Job, vii 19. 

In the New Testament heaven and hell are profusely men¬ 
tioned. As to the location of heaven, the best Christian 
and the modern Rationalist views are in fairly good accord. 
Heaven is here on earth or it is nowhere. To the radiating 
influence of the ancient Stoic philosophers is due much of 
the good we appreciate in the New Testament. “If thou 
workest at that which is before thee, following right, reason 
seriously, * * * without allowing anything else to dis¬ 

tract thee, but keep thy divine part pure * * * if thou 
holdest to these expecting nothing, but satisfied with thy 
present activity according to nature, and with heroic truth 
in every word and sound which thou utterest, thou wilt 
live happy; and there is no man who is able to prevent 
this.”—Marcus Aurelius (Stoic Philosopher). “Behold the 
kingdom of God is within you.”—Luke, xvii:2i. 

REV. HOMER SYNNESTVEDT. 

Swedenborg alone, among religious teachers, gives a ra¬ 
tional and tangible philosophy of creation whereby we are 
able to explain and give substantial definiteness to the spiri¬ 
tual body and functions of man, and its “place,” both while 
still in the body, and afterward, when the grosser envelope 
has been left behind. The Kingdom of Heaven is within 
you answers the question when so understood. Heaven is 
the inward man, with all its thoughts, feelings and past 
experiences gathered up and indestructibly stamped upon 
the tissues of our two memories—the “inside” and the 
“outside” of the book of life. This realm is called a “King- 

309 


THE WANDERER 


dom of Heaven” so far as the law of the Lord reigns there. 
Satan divides this government in many minds or hearts. 

Heaven, therefore, is not in space, any more than our 
thoughts are, but is related to those still in space, much as 
our spirits are related to our bodies. For heaven is the 
aggregate Spiritual Realm, of the selfsame Maximus Homo 
or great whole of the human race, of which we in this 
world are, as it were, the outer part, restii-g down upon 
the fulcrum of fixed matter about the “curving surface of 
unnumbered earths.” Hence, when Swedenborg was shown 
the spirits from other earths, he described them as being 
“near their own earths.” 


WHAT IS THE “TOM” MOONEY 
CASE? 

“There is no courage but in innocence 

—Sothern, in “The Fate of Capua.” 

WILLIAM D. STEPHENS, Governor of California. 

J ULY 22, 1916, 10 persons were killed and about 50 others 
wounded in a bomb explosion during a preparedness pa¬ 
rade in San Francisco. A number of persons of pronounced 
anarchistic tendencies were arrested shortly after and of 
these Warren K. Billings was convicted and sentenced to 
life imprisonment and Thomas J. Mooney found guilty and 
sentenced to be hanged. 

So long as avenues of appeal to the courts remained open 
to Mooney, and he was availing himself of them, I deemed 
it improper to interfere. Although the Constitution of 
California clothes the Governor with power to exercise 
clemency at any time, it is important not to intrude into 
any criminal case until the judicial branch has finally dis- 

310 


THE WANDERER 


posed of it. Only recently has final action been taken by 
the United States Supreme Court, and the case of the people 
versus Thomas J. Mooney placed squarely before me. 

In considering the Mooney case I have had before me 
the urgent appeal of the President of the United States 
that I grant commutation. In January, this year, I received 
a letter from the President asking if it would not be possi¬ 
ble to postpone the execution of Mooney until he could be 
tried 'Upon one of the other indictments against him. 

As appeal had been taken to the Supreme Court of Cali¬ 
fornia, which acted as a stay, there was at that time no occa¬ 
sion for action on my part. I take it the President was not 
correctly informed as to the status of the case. 

In March I received a telegram from the President urg¬ 
ing that I commute Mooney's sentence. 

In June I received an additional message, the President 
again urging commutation of sentence. At the time of the 
receipt of these messages the case was still pending in the 
Supreme Court of the State. Not until August 23 was 
the case finally disposed of by the California courts, and 
November 18 by the Supreme Court of the United States. 

I have carefully reviewed all available evidence bearing 
on the case. There are certain features which convince me 
the extreme sentence should not be executed. Therefore, 
and because of the earnest request of the President for 
commutation, and conscious of the duty I owe as Governor 
of this State to all of its people, I decided to commute 
Mooney's sentence to life imprisonment. In doing so, I 
accept full responsibility for the wisdom and justification 
of the action. 

I refuse to recognize this case as in any fashion repre¬ 
senting a clash between capital and labor. I regard the 
petition of the defendant for clemency solely as that of a 
man convicted of murder in the first degree. On his behalf, 
a propaganda has been carried on to make it appear that 
he is a martyr to the cause of labor. This is absurd. 

3 11 


THE WANDERER 


Mooney never has been identified with the labor move¬ 
ment that has achieved so much for the benefit of the work¬ 
ingmen and working women of California. His connec¬ 
tions have been with a small group of agitators of pro¬ 
nounced anarchistic tendencies. However, propaganda in 
his behalf has been so effective as to become world-wide. 

FRANKLIN A. GRIFFIN, Judge, Superior Court, San 
Francisco, Cal. 

What is the “Tom” Mooney case? It is the case of a man 
convicted of a horrible and appalling murder upon the testi¬ 
mony of witnesses which, it has been demonstrated (and 
the word is used advisedly) in the later trials of his co¬ 
defendants and elsewhere, has no foundation in fact. 

It is a case which proves that, however carefully sup¬ 
pressed, and whatever the means of suppression, truth 
will out. It is a case where, because of narrow and techni¬ 
cal rules of procedure laid down and clung to by the highest 
courts of the laad, a man is denied a retrial of an issue, upon 
which depends his life or his liberty, when the established 
facts demand and call aloud for such retrial. 

It is a case which, because of the discovery of important 
and material facts bearing immediately upon the guilt or 
innocence of the convicted man, and because of the denial 
of their proper presentation to a jury and the consequently 
apparent denial to him of that justice which should be, and 
which in theory is, within the reach of all men, now becomes 
one of the most potent arguments in use of the condemna¬ 
tion generally of the courts of the land, and adds no little 
to the labor unrest of the country. 

And, finally, it is a case which, because of the apathy of 
officials whose duty it is to ascertain, if possible, the truth, 
will, except for some miracle, remain always vague and 
mysterious. 


312 


THE WANDERER 


J. EDWARD MORGAN, Traveling Representative, Inter¬ 
national Defense League of San Francisco. 

George Bernard Shaw, expressing himself on the Mooney 
case, intimates that it is but additional proof of the failure 
of American civilization and of the savagery and stupidity 
of American capitalism. Writing to one of his close per¬ 
sonal friends in New York and one of the first men of 
letters in this country, Mr. Shaw remarks: 

“Such things are always happening in America. The 
Golden West has no illusions for me. But what is the use 
of me preaching to the angry ape; if he won’t listen to 
Shakespeare he won’t listen to me.” 

Champ Clark, former speaker of the House, in a letter 
to a prominent labor man of the East, acknowledging 
receipt of resolutions asking Congressional investigation of 
the Mooney case, wrote: “I believe Mooney got a rotten 
deal.” 

The Women’s Christian Temperance Union of California, 
after discussion at its San Francisco convention, addressed 
a letter to the Governor of California appealing for a new 
trial for Mooney. The women declared that to keep silence 
longer would make them feel that they were silent acces¬ 
sories to the crime against Mooney’s life. They protested 
vigorously against the Governor’s action in commuting 
Mooney’s sentence to life imprisonment, and reminded him 
that the President of the United States had requested him 
to use his official power to bring about a new trial for 
Mooney. 

Franklin A. Griffin, the judge who presided at the Mooney 
trial, as soon as the notorious Oxman letters were revealed 
by one of the State’s prospective witnesses (Regall of 
Graysville, Ill., whom Oxman sought by offers of reward to 
support him in his perjured testimony against Mooney), 
assured that the conviction of Mooney was a miscarriage 
of justice, addressed a letter to the Attorney General of the 

313 


THE WANDERER 


State of California. Placing before him facsimiles of the 
Oxman letters to Regall, Judge Griffin requested him to 
take steps to bring the case back to his court for retrial. 
He declared that “Right and justice demand that a new 
trial of the Mooney case be had that no possible mistake 
be made where a human life is involved.” 

The Attorney General in his brief to the Supreme Court 
said: “In view of the facts, and these statements and 
requests of the judge who tried the case, it would seem 
proper for this office to act in accordance with his sugges¬ 
tion. Believing that justice will be subserved by a retrial I 
hereby stipulate and consent that the judgment order here¬ 
tofore entered by the trial court be reversed and the case 
remanded for retrial.” 

A commission appointed by President Wilson composed 
of William B. Wilson, Secretary of Labor, representatives 
of the Federal Government and labor, two wealthy and 
prominent business men, John F. Spangler of Pennsyl¬ 
vania, and Vernon Z. Reed of Colorado, concluded their 
report to the President in the following words: “The feel¬ 
ing of disquietude aroused by the case impairs the faith 
that our democracy protects the lowliest, even the un¬ 
worthy, against false accusations. War is fought with 
moral as well as material resources. We are in this war 
to vindicate the unstained process of law, however slow at 
times such process may be. These claims must be tem¬ 
pered by the fire of our own devotion to them at home.” 

J. B. Desmore, director general of employment, who 
made an investigation for the United States Department 
of Labor, in an exhaustive report, recently written into the 
Congressional Record, speaking of one particular revela¬ 
tion in the method by the District Attorney in intimidating 
witnesses declares: 

“I have said the Judd episode speaks for itself. I should 
like to go a step further, if I could do so without violating 
the prosaic formality of a Government report, and venture 

314 


THE WANDERER 


the observation that the episode shouts aloud to heaven; 
that its voice is the despairing cry of justice forsaken, sink¬ 
ing into the quicksands and treacherous slime of violence 
and perjury. There is something heart-rending and appeal¬ 
ing—perhaps the very poignancy of the cry will arouse the 
public conscience and speed the necessary measure for 
rescue.” 

With these facts before it the Supreme Court of Cali¬ 
fornia gave this opinion: 

“Although perjury and bribery be used, as is seen, the 
defendant is without remedy.” 

So, what is the Mooney case? Many hundreds of thou¬ 
sands, familiar with all of the details, consider it to be the 
test and trial of democracy, and of the facility of the Ameri¬ 
can courts to deal impartial justice alike to rich and poor. 


DOES PERSECUTION EVER STOP 
ANYTHING? 

“You may break , you may shatter the vase if you will , 
But the scent of the roses will hang round it still ” 

—Thomas Moore. 

DR. C. R. ZAHNISER. 

T HE record is that when Pharaoh tried persecution on 
the Israelites, “The more they afflicted them, the more 
they multiplied.” That was no miracle; it was the ordinary 
course of events. Persecution only baits. 

The sufficient argument against ultra violence, even in 
the name of the law, is that it always ultimately fails. Of 
course no one advocates persecution of the good and the 
true. But to use it against the base and the false has 

315 


THE WANDERER 


ordinarily made martyrs of their advocates and encircled 
them with a halo they did not deserve. 

The truth has nothing to fear from an open field and 
free discussion. Even crushed to earth it will rise again. 
The man of real faith in Americanism is not throwing fits 
of hysteria nowadays and seeing red in every advocate of 
any change. His faith in the essential truth of fundamental 
Americanism leaves him without fear that it can win in 
open fair encounter and so he welcomes such. 

It is a timorous Uzzah who is afraid the Lord cannot 
keep his ark on the cart, who is now demanding suppres¬ 
sion of free speech and all such. Our greatest danger to¬ 
day is that, having conquered Prussianism with the sword, 
we shall find ourselves subtilely infected with its hellish 
spirit. Every evidence of a readiness to regard any one 
who differs from one’s self as a dangerous character is a 
symptom of it. We do not want a revival of the kind of 
American spirit that burned witches in Salem. 

L. K. PORTER. 

No. Had Pharaoh not persecuted the Israelites, the Red 
Sea would not have been opened, the promised land would 
not have been discovered and we would not have the Ten 
Tablets of the Law. * 

The great brain of the immortal Penn might have lain 
dormant and the State of Pennsylvania, now so righteously 
governed by a few, would be a wilderness inhabited by a 
different kind of Indians. The Pilgrim Fathers would not 
have been able to worship God according to the dictates of 
their own consciences and make other people do the same. 

If Phillips, Garrison, Lovejoy, Brown et al. had not 
been persecuted, the black man of the South would still be 
enjoying the sweet, blissful contentment of slave life, 
instead of enjoying the freedom of a sweatshop or working 
under a stop-watch. 


316 


THE WANDERER 

Persecution may be good, but it may do great harm, 
because it is fundamentally wrong and liable to enlist the 
people in a bad cause out of sympathy for its persecuted 
advocate, of which we might well take notice in our conduct 
toward those with whom the majority does not agree in 
the crisis through which we are passing, giving to them the 
same right of free thought and speech that we are claiming 
for ourselves, but insisting at the same time on a rigid 
enforcement of the law as it now exists until it is changed 
by orderly and peaceful means under the most glorious of 
all documents—the Constitution—which makes provision 
for its own amendment without violence. 

REV. JAMES D. RANKIN, Pittsburg Theological 
Seminary. 

Persecution may cneck, but never destroys, an idea. It 
may bury the idea but a buried idea, like a buried seed, 
will appear again in blade and stock. 

Thoughts express themselves in deeds. What a man 
thinks to-day, he will do to-morrow. To stop a movement 
you must convince its advocates it is false. You cannot 
do this by force. 

Force may check the doing but it has no effect on the 
thinking, and thinking demands expression. Persecution 
often helps a movement by limiting its advocates to those 
who are thoroughly consecrated to it. Long ago this fact 
gave us the proverb, “The blood of the martyrs is the seed 
of the church.” 

Dr. Lord, the historian, says that no truth ever made 
real progress until persecution began. 

THOMAS G. SULLIVAN. 

To-day we have the persecution of the social thinkers. 
When every advanced country in Europe has adopted a so- 

3i7 


THE WANDERER 


cialistic scheme of Government, this backward people still 
throw Debs in jail, deports Emma Goldman and lynches 
Frank Little. Fifty years from now Eugene V. Debs will 
occupy a place in American history similar to that of 
Garrison. 

We have seen the results of American persecution of 
intellectual movements. The I. W. W. has been destroyed 
and to-day is the strongest force in our political problem. 
The war broke up the Socialist party and to-day we have 
the Communist and Communist Labor, years ahead of the 
Socialists. The Government, according to members of 
Congress, is filled with radicals of all sorts. This is, in 
short, the result of persecution. 

DONAL KELLY. 

Yes, if ruthlessly pursued and the victims are a poor, 
spiritless, ignorant people, and the persecutors are as filled 
with the lust of robbery and murder as our dear “cousin,” 
John Bull. 

For proof we need only refer to the last ioo years of 
his brutal existence and its results, in the obliteration of the 
Maoris, the native Australians, the Zulus, the Ashantees 
and scores of other weak populations. 

But if persecution is against a race or a religion whose 
members are of fair intelligence, with a past of glorious 
memories, let the persecutor beware, for the more he op¬ 
presses the more powerful and antagonistic become the 
victims. 

The Jews were harassed by every nation except the 
Irish, and they are to-day more numerous and more in¬ 
fluential than ever in the world’s work. The Irish have 
been scourged and bled and starved by gluttonous England 
for 747 years. They are to-day her only obstacle to a 
conquest of both hemispheres, including the United States. 

The crime-smeared flag of Albion would be waving over 


THE WANDERER 


our Capitol now if Wall Street, New England and pro- 
British officials in Washington had their way. Thank God, 
though, that in this great, magnificent Republic, no matter 
what may happen, no matter what the might of gold and 
the glitter of English royalty, Uncle Sam can always con¬ 
gratulate himself that “the Irish yet remain/' No penal 
acts of sycophants or slaves will ever cow them into accep¬ 
tance of the smallest concession that would affect the dignity 
of Columbia or dim the luster of the Stars and Stripes. 

Persecution has its advantages. It has given us “the 
Kellys and Burkes and Sheas." 

E. V. KING. 

The word “persecution" is begging the whole question. 
Every radical, incendiary, self-appointed reformer, would- 
be uplifter, mollycoddle pacifist, and bomb-throwing 
anarchist whines that he is being “persecuted" whenever the 
strong arm of the law reaches after him, or his outraged 
neighbors take the law into their own hands. What such 
vermin call “persecution" is righteous retribution or the 
self-defense of organized society or the instinctive outburst 
of decent public opinion. It is not persecution at all; it 
is highly desirable regulation, suppression and eradication. 
And it is the only way to combat certain doctrines. 

Why argue with a Socialist or an anarchist? His first 
premise is wrong, for he insists that property rights are 
not sacred. Does not the Bible tell us, through the mouth 
of the Divine Master, that “to him that hath shall be given?" 
This is nature's law, and it is divine law. Whoever would 
deny or question it is outside the law, is not amenable to 
reason, and logic would be wasted on such. 

The only logic they can comprehend is the big stick. 
They should be ruthlessly exterminated, to keep them from 
leading others astray. If in the past there has been startling 
severity in the execution of this necessary work to save 
319 


THE WANDERER 

society, we must remember that those were barbaric ages 
and cruel measures were necessary to keep the age from 
lapsing into utter savagery. 

There was even a time when the rack and the fagot and 
the thumbscrew were necessary to save society from the 
menace of its deadliest enemies. Amateurs who meddle 
with theology and economics, subjects they know nothing 
about, are the worst troublemakers of all times, and the only 
way they can be effectively restrained is by drastic penalties. 
Let them yell “persecution” all they like. The verdict of 
history will be that they invited what they got, and that it 
served them right. 


I. LEVINE. 

In all the painful history of the human race we find that 
the ruling class, that is the so-called government, with their 
ally, the holy church, backed up by the money power, 
always persecuted the great spirits of mankind either in the 
name of God or King. 

Great temples of torture were erected and all sorts of im¬ 
plements invented to punish those who dared to brave the 
wrath of church or State. The greatest men in every age 
suffered persecution. Socrates died in prison, Galileo and 
Bruno were burned alive, and thousands of others suffered 
the same fate. Mothers, sisters, wives, did not escape. Not 
so very long ago, many women were burned alive in Salem, 
Mass. 

Only within six months our best women were thrown 
into jails and dungeons in Washington, D. C., and other 
places for claiming they were the equals of men and de¬ 
manding the privilege to vote. 

Men and women of the future are always looking for a 
better day, for the day when all will be enjoying the fruits 
of labor, not just a few by the exploitation of the many. 
When that day comes, persecution will cease, wars will be 

320 


THE WANDERER 


a thing of the past and then we will have peace on earth 
and good will toward man. 

No, persecution doesn’t prevent anything. 


WHAT IS THE SIGNIFICANCE OF 
THE LABOR UNREST? 

Once to every man and Nation comes the moment to 
decide, 

In the strife of Truth with Falsehood, for the good or 
evil side, 

Some great cause, God’s new Messiah, offering the 
bloom or blight, 

Parts the goats upon the left hand, and the sheep upon 
the right: 

And the choice goes by forever ’twixt that darkness and 
that light . 

—James Russell Lowell. 
GEORGE P. HASTINGS. 

A NATURAL reaction due to the recent war has found 
its outlet in the present labor unrest. This reaction 
will shortly be dissipated, and with the return of the foreign 
population to their native lands the American workmen will 
forget the radical doctrines which have been dinned into 
their ears by professional agitators and return to work. 
The lot of the American workman is the best in the world. 
He has greater opportunities for a rise to successful busi¬ 
ness than in any other country. It is a common thing in 
this country for a laborer to become the owner of the enter¬ 
prise. The American workman appreciates the risk sus¬ 
tained by an investor; he places a high value on the fore¬ 
sight and enterprise necessary to establish a business, and 
he is ready to accept a fair day’s pay for a fair day s work, 
looking always to the future, knowing that thrift, economy 
321 


THE WANDERER 


and saving will afford him the opportunity to become one of 
the leaders in this land of opportunity. 

It is natural that labor should want better wages and 
better conditions, but at the same time the fine self-sacrifice 
of the American workman will come to the fore and he will 
give up these things so that reconstruction may be realized. 
He is proud that the United States is the wealthiest coun¬ 
try in the world, and in this pride he will sacrifice some of 
those things which he may think makes life worth living. 
Proud of his strength, glorying in the accomplishments of 
his brawn, he will pass rapidly through this period of ex¬ 
citement. 

So, in my opinion, the labor unrest is merely the throwing 
off of the restraints imposed by the war. We need fear no 
critical strikes, no Bolshevism in this land of the free; let 
us have unbounded faith in the common sense of the ioo- 
per-cent American workman. 

JOHN SANDGREN, Editor, The One Big Union 
Monthly , Chicago. 

What is the significance of the labor unrest? Why—the 
“restlessness” of the workers in this country is essentially 
the same as the restlessness in Europe. It is a difference 
in degree only, not a difference of kind. The pressure of 
capitalism is becoming unbearable. Some suffer because 
they are deprived of the fundamental civic rights, such as 
free speech, free press, and free assemblage, others are 
restless because there are hundreds of innocent fellow work¬ 
ers in jails, and still others are restless because their incomes 
are too small to meet the high cost of living. Most of us 
are in a state of unrest from all three of these causes and 
because of our general economic insecurity. 

All of this unrest is stimulated by the example set by 
the workers of Europe. The world’s workers entertain a 
secret or outspoken hope to be able, at this time, to put an 
end to capitalism and to usher in a new social order, though 

322 


THE WANDERER 


large masses surely would return to contentedness in slavery 
if there were a material increase in the wages or a corre¬ 
sponding decrease in the cost of living. In other words, the 
unrest is caused by discontent which in some cases could 
be allayed with a few concessions, in other cases, only by 
a complete change in the economic structure of society. 

The I. W. W. see in present day events the sure signs of 
the complete breakdown of capitalism in the very near 
future, and we are preparing for this collapse by organizing 
industrial unions, by means of which the people will be able 
to take over and continue production when capitalism can 
no longer do it without inflicting too great suffering on 
mankind. 

Our activity does not signify the “unrest” that will take 
expression in food riots or street and barricade fighting. 
It is consciously and calmly directed upon the building of 
the framework of the new society, within the shell of the 
old, and by the new society, we mean a society of industrial 
communism. 

WALTER SCHMIDT. 

Labor unrest has been a fact since the beginning of class 
society, and from time to time in every historic epoch we 
have witnessed violent manifestations of labor’s awakening. 
In the nineteenth century the revolution of 1848, the chartist 
movement in England, the Paris commune of 1871 are the 
peaks of labor straining at the leash. 

With the opening of the twentieth century, the Russian 
revolution of 1905 shows that labor has not ceased in its 
restlessness, and now in the year of 1919 we find it spread 
all over the world. The present unrest of labor has no 
special significance, but it is causing greater consternation 
among the privileged classes than ever before, because it 
is so persistent and wide-spread. 

Unrest means a people dissatisfied with their lot, a people 
who would throw off the yoke of exploitation and slavery, 
323 


THE WANDERER 


the heritage of misery, which has been their lot for many 
centuries. Through the age long rest and struggle, the 
workers have finally become articulate and understand the 
source of their degradation and the cause of their misery. 

Those who think and hope that the present unrest is tem¬ 
porary are in for a rude awakening. For the unrest of 
labor will not end, but will become more profound and 
extensive until it acquires such power that with its cleansing 
sweep it thus clears away classes, privileges, slavery and 
property. 

JOHN BOOKJAMS. 

Capitalism is the expression of the economic interests and 
economic and political dominance of the capitalist class. 
During the earlier stages of capitalism, the capitalist played 
the double role of investor of capital and of manager of 
industry. In the more undeveloped enterprises, he still re¬ 
tains both functions. But in the corporately owned indus¬ 
tries, the management of industry is left to high-salaried 
employes, while the capitalist himself has been reduced to 
a mere coupon-clipper. The only useful function of the 
capitalist was that of manager of industry. Since he has 
stripped himself of this function, however, and delegated 
this function to high-salaried employes, he remains a mere 
investor of capital. As an investor of capital, the capitalist 
may be useful to himself, but from the point of view of 
the interests of society as a whole his usefulness is on a par 
with that of a mosquito. Did the steel mills permanently 
close when Carnegie died? 

The wage worker is becoming conscious of his class inter¬ 
ests and his class mission. He is still willing to accept an 
increase in wages and a reduction in the hours of his work, 
and he is willing to fight for these concessions, but he will 
no longer remain content with them. His aim goes further 
than that, and becomes ever more clearly formulated. He 
is beginning to think that he is “the whole cheese,” and he 

324 


THE WANDERER 


actually is in proportion that he begins to think that way. 
He is beginning to realize that the capitalist system does 
not serve his interests and only continues at his expense. 
He is becoming dimly conscious of a social system that 
shall reflect his interests—a social system under which the 
social means of wealth production, which to-day are being 
privately owned by men who do not and cannot operate 
them, shall be socially owned and democratically managed 
by those who do operate them. Such a catastrophe might 
be averted, some people think. It might be possible to 
abolish the law of gravitation. 

FELIX PIEKARSKI. 

Commerce and business, to be progressive, depend pri¬ 
marily upon the proper functioning of capital and labor— 
upon the one as much as upon the other. When a lack 
of co-ordination between these forces exists, there neces¬ 
sarily arises a disruption in their relative activities. What 
this absence of harmony may be, is immaterial to the ques¬ 
tion at issue. It may be of small caliber or large. Never¬ 
theless, it must exist. Otherwise there would be no neces¬ 
sity for differences of interest toward respective ends. This, 
I believe, is self-evident. 

If capital and labor had no grievance, the one toward the 
other, or vice versa, there would be no strikes. The ques¬ 
tion therefore logically arises, What is it which causes the 
cogs to slip ? The answer is found in our immediate midst, 
and is the old matter of inadequate wages, or better, the 
unequal rates at which wages as compared to the price of 
commodities advance. Of course, wages have advanced, 
but it is a well known fact that this advance has not been 
in proportion to the rise in price of commodities. It is this 
inequality which gives rise to demands on the part of 
wage earners; it is usually the cause of all labor unrest. 

Now, the question relates to the significance of the exist¬ 
ing attitude between capital and labor. It means that the 

325 


THE WANDERER 


resultant inequality between the workman’s income and his 
expenditure must undergo a change. Otherwise, this state 
of unrest and uncertainty will continue. 

Moreover, though this condition of strained circum¬ 
stances does not mean Bolshevism, nevertheless, if per¬ 
mitted to go on, it may provide a means whereby the seeds 
of Bolshevism may be sown. At this point Government can 
play its part in restoring the necessary equilibrium. Since 
our Government derives its powers from the consent of the 
governed, it is we, all of us, who jointly are in a position 
to institute that spirit of satisfaction and justice which alone 
can insure the coordination of the relative functions of all 
parties concerned. It is to the interest of all that a just 
basis be arrived at. Until then, commerce and business 
will not reach its highest possible stage. 


SHOULD A CONSCIENTIOUS OB¬ 
JECTOR BE CONDEMNED? 


“There is a spectacle grander than the ocean , and 
that is conscience 

—Victor Hugo in “Les Miserables.” 

ROGER NASH BALDWIN, Essex County Penitentiary, 
Caldwell, N. J. 

HIS means, in other words, should a man who honestly 



X refuses to be conscripted for military service be mor¬ 
ally condemned ? Legally, there is no argument, the Supreme 
Court has spoken, and he is condemned to prison. Morally, 
it is quite a different matter. This obedience of law is 
often prompted by the highest motives for the good of 
society. We have only to remember the open defiance of 
the fugitive slave law by the Northern Abolitionists, who 


326 


THE WANDERER 


continued to help slaves on the underground railroad into 
Canada, and went to jail for it. The gentle Henry Wads¬ 
worth Longfellow said that the “law was only good for one 
thing—to break.” Scores of high-minded men went to 
prison in this Abolitionist movement. Yet, who now con¬ 
demn them? Were they not greater patriots than those 
who jailed them—judged by history? 

Just so with conscientious objectors. 

They refuse to obey a law which is to them morally 
wrong. Some refuse because they regard participation in 
any war as against their religion—some because they deny 
the moral right of the Government to conscript their laws 
and determine their service for them. In the conflict be¬ 
tween the law and man’s idea of God’s commands, which 
shall prevail ? Which is the higher, God or the State ? Will 
you try to force a Quaker into the trenches, knowing you 
can only get him into prison or a firing-squad? 

In this war, the objector has been subject to the age- 
old persecution of heretics. Even the Government’s policy 
made it easy for men who might be charged with trying to 
get a safe place, and hard for those objectors who refused 
all service whatever. And yet popular opinion condemned 
them as slackers and cowards, and yet had not a word of 
criticism for those who sought and took safe jobs in uni¬ 
form—the slackers in fact. 

Yet it is this little handful of 500 men—most of whom 
are still in prison—who have resolutely held their faith 
against all conceivable pressure and persecution, ready 
to testify by prison and death to their ideals of human 
brotherhood and of freedom of all men to live the truth 
as they see it. 

JOHN HAYNES HOLMES, the Community Church, 
New York City. 

Should a conscientious objector be condemned? 

No! The recognition and protection of the liberty of con- 

327 


THE WANDERER 


science constitute one of the first duties of true religion and 
sound political democracy. If the right of conscience is 
to be denied, then have prophets witnessed and martyrs 
died in vain. Whether conscientious objection to war, or 
any other particular thing, is rational or not, is a fair sub¬ 
ject for debate; but that the objection when it appears 
in sincerity and courage, is not only to be condemned but 
reverenced, especially when the objector is willing to suffer 
and if needs be die for his faith, should be elementary in 
any real Christian civilization. Some day all men will be 
opposed to war, as all men are now opposed to chattel 
slavery; then will the conscientious objector be remembered, 
as the abolitionist is now remembered, as a pioneer, who 
bore witness to the truth at bitter personal cost. 

SCOTT NEARING. 

Conscience is the most sacred thing in the world. Those 
who follow it deserve supreme commendation. 

War is the most hideous manifestation of hatred, bigotry, 
prejudice and ignorance of which the human race is guilty. 
It is also one of the worst diseases that affect society. 
War leads men to substitute violence and destruction for 
co-operation, generosity, kindness and brotherhood. 

Those who obeyed conscience and objected to war should 
be set free; indemnified and honored, and recognized as the 
forerunners and prophets of a new day. 

Will this happen? 

Not while the world remains in the hands of profiteers 
who foster ignorance and traffic in prejudice. 

Not while a system permits which enables one man to live 
without labor on the labor of another. 

While imperialism walks abroad autocracy will hold at 
home. 

It is only in the society of self-reliant, living free 
that conscience will be free. 

328 


men 


THE WANDERER 


FRED W. JONES. 

The conscientious objector is a specie of the human fam¬ 
ily defined as one governed by a strict regard to the dictates 
of conscience, or supposed rules of right and wrong. The 
fundamental rule of democracy, “the majority rules,” is 
opposed by him if the measure or law under contempla¬ 
tion or adopted conflicts with his conscientious scruples or 
beliefs. Irrespective of the merits of any measure advo¬ 
cated on scientific ground, which scientists and researchers 
may vow to be of inestimable benefit to the human family, 
the conscientious objector may advance arguments or rea¬ 
sons in opposition to it on purely imaginary, conscientious 
ground, which are virtually nothing less than selfishness 
or the warped vision of a fanatic. 

Take, for instance, the case of the conscientious objector 
in the recent war. While the civilized world was fighting 
the greatest monster of the age, who hesitated not in his 
ruthlessness to ravage and outrage, the conscientious ob¬ 
jector refrained from lifting a finger to protect the defense¬ 
less woman, even though a kith or kin. 

The Creator, through nature, has provided even the body 
with elements of self-defense, whereby certain corpuscles 
combat diseases. That being the case in nature, it is logical 
to deduct that the same principle should prompt a member 
of the human family to resort to measures of self-protection 
when assailed by a brutal foe. 

A conscientious objector is so blind to his own belief 
that he fails to differentiate between right and wrong. Even 
if a measure be right in the sight of nine-tenths of the 
people, it is wrong if it conflicts with the dictates of his 
conscience. He is so completely infatuated with his own 
point of life that every other viewpoint is warped and 
wrong. Verily, “there are none so blind as those who will 
not see.” 

The conscientious objector is the most selfish and despotic 
329 


THE WANDERER 


member of the human family, and if governments were 
excluded according to the dictates of his conscience democ¬ 
racy would be supplanted by ultra-imperialism. 

Majority rule, if conflicting with his conscientious and 
blind beliefs, would be abrogated at his behest, for he is 
blind to the law of reason, the law of self-defense and the 
law of nature. 

NORMAN THOMAS, Editor of The World Tomorrow . 

At the present time there are in the United States between 
200 and 250 conscientious objectors in our military prisons, 
originally sentenced on an average of from 20 to 30 years. 
The public clamor against the injustice of court-martials 
resulted in a great reduction of these sentences both for 
conscientious objectors and other military prisoners, a re¬ 
duction made on no consistent principle. This is not 
enough. At the close of a war for democracy, the only 
decent or sensible thing is to grant an amnesty to men who, 
however mistakenly, abstained from fighting because of 
conscientious conviction. All these men could have been 
released long ere this had they compromised by accepting 
some nominal form of non-combatant service, instead of 
which they have undergone long periods of solitary con¬ 
finement and other tortures. Therefore, at the very least, 
they are not cowards, and their continued imprisonment 
casts doubt upon the sincerity of our opposition to “Prus- 
sianism,” whose essence was a blind worship of the State. 
Moreover, simply from a practical standpoint, each one 
of these men who might be a self-supporting citizen is a 
center of unrest and agitation. 

In England, more than 50 of the most distinguished 
citizens joined in a petition for the freedom of the con¬ 
scientious objectors. In America the Federal Council of 
Churches and other bodies have endorsed it. Contrary 
opinion in this country arises in the mail* from false and 
330 


THE WANDERER 


prejudiced statements made against the objectors and from 
ignorance as to what has actually happened, or from a 
thoughtless acceptance of the philosophy of the enemy 
against whom we fought. How many of your readers know 
that the ioo and more objectors discharged from Fort 
Leavenworth with back pay because under the War De¬ 
partment’s own ruling they ought never to have been in 
prison, returned $5,000 to the War Department? 

CLAUDE R. BORTMAN. 

In time of national peril, a man who, because of self- 
attributed conscientious scruples, refuses to serve his coun¬ 
try, no matter in what capacity it may demand, should be 
classed and treated as an enemy. Edward Everett Hale’s 
version of “The Man Without a Country” requires no 
repetition. 

Every American citizen inherits certain responsibilities. 
Only a person devoid of honor will stand aside and let 
another assume the duty which he is morally bound to 
share. 

Religion and war can be co-ordinated. To faithfully 
serve one’s country, actual fighting is not essential. Real 
conscientious objectors were given an opportunity to live 
up to their apparent actuating principle and still participate 
in the recent war as non-combatants. There were many 
such men in France. 

The viewpoint of the “objector” is illogical. If he refuses 
to fight for his country, he must necessarily refuse to fight 
in any other cause. An invasion of America by an armed 
host is certainly improbable—but, in such a event, what 
then? 

JOSEPH R. MOUNTAIN. 

A conscientious objector is one who refuses to engage in 
warfare because it is a violation of his religious convic- 

33i 


THE WANDERER 


tions. It has been my privilege to discuss the question of 
their opinions and attitude with hundreds of these objectors, 
and in every case there has been evident a sincerity of pur¬ 
pose and a calm toleration of abuse which excites admira¬ 
tion rather than condemnation. Since all of these men are 
believers in the teachings of Jesus Christ, and since He 
was a pacifist and preacher against violence, it becomes 
idle for pretending Christians to condemn a conscientious 
objector without convicting themselves of hypocrisy. More, 
these men are a powerful arraignment of the so-called pas¬ 
tors of Christ, who have sold their honesty of belief for the 
sake of their bodily comforts. In short, the conscientious 
objectors are a small group of men who have preserved 
the integrity of their belief when the rest of the world 
would have compromised. 


SHOULD TOM PAINE’S BOOKS 
BE EXCLUDED FROM OUR 
LIBRARIES? 

“ Orthodoxy , my Lord" said Bishop Warburton, in a 
whisper , 

“Orthodoxy is my doxy , heterodoxy is another man's 
doxy." 

—From the “Memoirs” of Joseph Priestly. 

JOHN H. LEETE, Librarian, Carnegie Library, 
Pittsburg, Pa. 

I F all the people of the community felt alike, thought alike, 
and believed alike, and were interested only in what 
they personally felt, thought, and believed, life certainly 
would be less complex, as well as more monotonous and 
unprogressive. But, of course, all do not feel, think, and 
332 


THE WANDERER 


believe alike, and some are genuinely interested in what 
other people feel, think, and believe, even though it be 
radically and irreconcilably opposed to their own ideas 
and beliefs. The library as a public institution must serve 
all these different elements of the community, although, of 
course, it has no place for material which measured by 
generally accepted standards is vicious or pernicious. 

Irrespective of the truth or falsity of the opinions and 
beliefs expressed, I believe that the writings of Thomas 
Paine have an interest and a value for many people of the 
community, and therefore have a place in the public library. 
I am confident that the reader of mature judgment who 
has the inclination (and the courage, and the energy) to 
read these works will not be seriously injured thereby. 

WILLIAM M. VAN DER WEYDE, President, Thomas 
Paine National Historical Association. 

Exclude the works of Thomas Paine from our public 
libraries? If it were done, it would only stimulate their 
sale, and they are among the best sellers now. No work 
on theology ever written sells one-tenth as well as “The 
Age of Reason/’ of which one New York publisher has 
just issued a new edition of 10,000. No book on politics 
written over a century ago is as popular to-day as “The 
Rights of Man,” defending the French Revolution against 
the attack of Edmund Burke. George Washington ordered 
“The Crisis” to be read aloud to every regiment of the 
army, and it heartened the ragged Continentals for victory 
in the darkest hour of the Revolution. Thomas Paine was 
the pioneer of a score of great reforms—it was he who 
first proposed the abolition of Negro slavery; who first 
suggested arbitration, international peace, and a league of 
nations; first proposed old age pensions and international 
copyright; first suggested the education of the children of 
the poor at the public expense; first proposed and first 

333 


THE WANDERER 


wrote the words: ‘'United States of America;” first sug¬ 
gested the Federal union of States after independence was 
achieved; first proposed the purchase of the Louisiana terri¬ 
tory; first suggested political justice to women; first advo¬ 
cated humane protection for dumb animals, and many other 
ideas that to-day are among the commonplaces of civiliza¬ 
tion, but were radical innovations and heresies when he 
first advanced them. Who will be so ungrateful, so blind, 
so reactionary, so mediaeval-minded as to propose that the 
works of this great thinker, this valiant apostle of liberty 
and democracy, should be excluded from the public 
libraries? It would be far more fitting if legislatures were 
to make appropriations to circulate them freely, and if Con¬ 
gress erected a monument to his memory with the inscrip¬ 
tion: “His pen did no less than the sword of Washington 
to set us free.” Unfortunately there are people who are 
unable to answer Paine’s religious arguments, and therefore 
wish to suppress his works, to keep other people from read¬ 
ing them. If the position of these pious folks is true, they 
need not be afraid; if it is false, they vainly hope to save 
it from overthrow. Libraries are built to spread knowledge, 
to feed discussion, to shed light into dark corners; and 
any library that would exclude the works of Thomas Paine 
from its circulating shelves, would be a prison house of 
thought, a penitentiary of progress, a bastille of the truth. 

REV. J. WILSON BROWN. 

I am perfectly frank in saying that I do favor the exclu¬ 
sion of Tom Paine’s books from our libraries, but not only 
the books of Paine, but I should like to see removed or 
excluded the books of every other man who does not believe 
the whole Bible is the inspired word of God, for “all 
Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for 
doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in 
righteousness; that the man of God may be perfect, thor- 

334 


THE WANDERER 

oughly furnished unto all good works.” (II Timothy iii :i6.) 

Tom Paine has been ably answered and silenced long 
ago, and the Tribune (New York, March 25, 1876) says in 
part: “His best arguments, if they may be so called, would 
not if first published to-day, attract the slightest attention, 
nor would anybody think them worthy of serious refuta¬ 
tion. The language in which he clothes his thoughts betrays 
great familiarity with the bitterness of Voltaire. He decried 
the sacred Scriptures as contradictory, though he had not 
a copy of the Bible at his command while criticising. 
When Robert Hall was asked his opinion of “The Age of 
Reason,” he replied, “My opinion of it, sir? Why, sir, 
it is a mouse nibbling at the wing of an archangel.” (Mc- 
Clintock & Strong. Cyclopaedia, vol. VII, page 537.) 

We should, therefore, protect our people, young and old, 
against all such unsafe and unscriptural writings, and look 
to the “Word of God,” the Bible, which says: 

“Beware, lest any man spoil you through philosophy and 
vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments 
of the world, and not after Christ.” (Cor. ii: 8.) 

“Now, I beseech you, brethren, mark them that are 
causing the divisions and occasions of stumbling, contrary 
to the doctrine which you have learned, and turn away 
from them.” (Romans xvi:i7 R. V.) 

“Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth and the 
life; no man cometh unto the Father but me.” (John 
xiv: 6.) 

And “as many as received Him (Jesus Christ) to them 
gave He power to become the sons of God, even to them 
that believe on His name.” (John i:i2.) 


335 


THE WANDERER 


SHOULD WE FREE ALL POLITI¬ 
CAL PRISONERS? 


Throughout the restless night I hear the footsteps over 
my head. Who walks? I know not. It is the phantom 
of the jail, the sleepless brain , a man , the man , the 
Walker, One — two — three — four: four paces and the 
wall. One — two — three — four: four paces and the iron 
gate. Everything of me he holds but the branding iron 
of contempt and the claymore of hatred for the mon¬ 
strous cabala that can make the apostle and the mur¬ 
derer, the poet and the procurer , think of the same 
gate , the same key and the same exit on the different 
sunlit highways of life. 


—Arturo Giovannitti, from “The Walker.” 

REV. THOMAS J. GLYNN, Chaplain St. Joseph’s 
Hospital, Pittsburg. 

NDOUBTEDLY yes, when the object on account of 



which they were imprisoned has been obtained, they 
should be made entirely free and given the rights and privi¬ 
leges they formerly enjoyed. Some of the best men and 
the greatest patriots this world has ever known have been 
political prisoners. Men who are advanced thinkers, men 
who have had vision to peer into the future so far as human 
eye can see, are always the very first to be made prisoners 
by the powers that be. 

Modem politics is a very uncertain quality. Leading 
men like our own President have changed the highest and 
most idealistic principle for political or diplomatic expedi¬ 
ency. Therefore, political prisoners like prisoners for 
conscience sake should be treated with the most liberal con¬ 
sideration, as those who are one day political prisoners, the 
next day may be the head of their country. 


336 


THE WANDERER 

MANUEL REY, Political Prisoner, Leavenworth, Kan. 

Yes. Free all political prisoners. Free Mooney, the con¬ 
scientious objectors, and the soldiers who fought for— 
democracy. My reasons are: Spain has freed her political 
prisoners; Italy, France, England, Germany, and some re¬ 
publics of Central America have freed their war prisoners. 
Why not America, the mother of democracy ? 

The United States should free political prisoners to show 
the world that America is a democratic country, and be¬ 
lieves in the principles of the Declaration of Independence. 
To be humane is not to be tolerant. To be humane and 
civilized is to tolerate whatever is tolerable. To be a re¬ 
publican is not to be an autocrat, but a democrat in the 
fullest meaning of the term democracy. 

Many of us are in prison for making statements similar 
to those which President Wilson has made to hundreds 
of millions of people. He has also said this. “If there is 
one thing that we love more deeply than another in the 
United States, it is that every man should have the privi¬ 
lege, unmolested and uncriticised, to utter the real convic¬ 
tions of his mind.” 

Truthful thoughts, ideas and differences of opinion make 
for the progress of humanity. Without them society will 
be more cannibalistic, more tyrannical, than humane or civi¬ 
lized. For thousands of years society has lived in a state 
of barbarism. Now, for the love of life, happiness and hu¬ 
manity itself, let us be humane. Let our motto be, “Love, 
peace, liberty, equality and fraternity.” 

From the humanitarian point of view, all political pris¬ 
oners should be freed at once. The intolerant and autocratic 
point of view is that they should be kept imprisoned, be¬ 
cause they think too much. We did not start the diabolical 
world war. We did everything possible to prevent that 
slaughter of manhood. 

We are not of those who caused the waste of billions 

337 


THE WANDERER 

of dollars. We are not of those responsible for the high 
cost of living. We are not of those who suppressed free 
speech, free assemblage, and free press. 

Political prisoners are in prison for being clear thinkers. 
Clear thinkers should not be in jail, they are needed else¬ 
where. Shall America be an autocratic country or demo¬ 
cratic? Will she free the political prisoners? If not, what 

are the reasons? 

FRED H. MERRICK. 

Yes!!! 

In this materialistic age the release of political prisoners 
for purely sentimental reasons would be illogical. It would 
be equally illogical to continue their imprisonment through 
personal prejudice or in the spirit of revenge. If their con¬ 
tinued imprisonment would result in no harm to the peo¬ 
ple of the United States than their release then it would 
be a stroke of real statesmanship to release all political 
prisoners. I am convinced that such a situation exists.. 

To deny that the imprisonment of industrial and political 
exponents of discontent has accentuated the previously 
existing discontent is rank stupidity. There is now a great 
demand for the “Americanization” of the “foreigner.” 
Many well-meaning people are planning such work. Let 
us pause and give thought as to whether it may not be pos¬ 
sible to do more harm than good ? 

Many of these “foreigners” now realize that they were 
imported originally by “American” millionaires and corpo¬ 
rations for the sole purpose of undermining the economic 
status of the wage earners and de-Americanizing those who 
were the real “Americans.” They now see agents and 
lackeys of these same millionaires and corporations yelling 
vociferously for the “Americanization of foreigners.” 

“The Americanization” campaign proposes to thoroughly 
acquaint the foreign-born with the English language. 
“American” ideals, traditions, institutions, etc. Such a 
338 


THE WANDERER 


program would of necessity require a study of the Federal 
and State constitutions. 

Then the student learns that courts commit native Amer¬ 
icans to long terms of imprisonment for quoting these con¬ 
stitutions and endorsing “American” traditions. By all 
means release these prisoners as the first lesson in “Amer¬ 
icanization” of the foreign-born. 

If not—well—“Whom the gods would destroy they first 
make mad.” 


WILLIAM HENRY CHAMBERLIN, Editor of 
Young Democracy . 

I think every man and woman convicted under the espion¬ 
age law should be immediately and unconditionally released 
because: 

First—Due to the peculiar interpretation of the law by 
the courts not a single German spy was convicted under its 
provisions, whereas hundreds of brave, idealistic, men and 
women, who had fought consistently for the establishment 
of real democracy in America, were given outrageously long 
terms of imprisonment. 

Second—The espionage law is unconstitutional and op¬ 
posed to American traditions of liberty and free speech. 

Third—Relief in the ethics of Jesus and belief that the 
war was fundamentally a clash of conflicting economic 
interests should not be punishable offenses. 

Fourth—The barbarous maltreatment of conscientious 
objectors in prison camps has already created a scandal 
which should be removed, not made worse. 

Fifth—The working class of America needs fearless men 
like Debs to lead the fight against the system of industrial 
slavery which Gary and his kind are trying to impose upon 
this country. 


339 


THE WANDERER 


ERNESTINE KOODWIN. 

I must confess that the psychology of the self-styled 
“conscientious objector” is beyond my comprehension. Of 
course, one can readily understand why a civilized human 
being should not wish to fight, so long as he can honorably 
avoid it, but we can’t always side-step Old Man Trouble, 
and the phrase, “too proud to fight,” should never have 
been used in connection with the world war. Of course, 
the physical cowardice that is the result of pre-natal influ¬ 
ence, or to some terrible danger in early childhood, just 
as a dog is said to be “gunshy,” is a misfortune that de¬ 
serves the same sympathy that we lavish on the mentally 
afflicted. Such cowardice is its own bitter punishment. 
However, as a test, before releasing these people, I would 
suggest giving them an invitation to witness a prize fight; 
those who refused might then be released, and the others 
given io years at hard labor. 

Those who endeavored to interfere with the operation 
of the draft, or assisted in circulating German propaganda, 
were guilty of treason, and hanging is too good for them. 
Enemy aliens should be deported as rapidly as possible, and 
the necessary steps taken to see that they are not permitted 
to return. 

The average American falls far short of the ideal which 
our forefathers had in mind when they drafted the Declara¬ 
tion of Independence and framed the Constitution. We 
are permitting liberty to degenerate into license, and it is 
time we realized the fact, otherwise, by permitting the sow¬ 
ing of the wind we are bound to reap the whirlwind. 

EUGENE LYONS, of the Workers’ Defense Union, 
New York City. 

Fair-minded people will not resort to the legal quibble 
that there are no political prisoners, that in a democracy 
340 


THE WANDERER 


built upon free political expression there can be no such 
category of prisoners. Actualities, those inconsiderate imps, 
shatter this sophism. Certainly, the hundreds of men and 
women held captive because their ideas have been pro¬ 
nounced by the courts as subversive to the best national 
interests during the war are not criminals in the normal 
sense of the word; they are guilty of no criminal act. 
Where belief has been made the basis of conviction, as in 
the case of the Socialists and Russellites, all the usual clas¬ 
sifications of criminal offenses are inadequate. 

A study of prosecutions and convictions leads to an 
astounding discovery, that the vanguard of labor has a 
monopoly of disloyalty. Laws ostensibly directed against 
spies, intriguers, those giving “aid and comfort to the 
enemy,” have crowded jails, not with spies, traitorous Ger¬ 
mans, etc., but with the spokesmen of labor. A monopoly 
of sedition, indeed! Even profiteering legislation is being 
directed against labor leaders. Under the Wichita indict¬ 
ment, I. W. W.’s, with nothing but communistic hopes to 
their credit are charged, among other things, with profiteer¬ 
ing. * ^ 

This phenomenon—the turning of the sharp edge of war 
legislation against economic non-conformists—unfortunately 
lends color to the reiterated charge that the late war was 
capital-inspired. If the wholesale persecution of radicals 
under cover of war statutes was a mere coincidence, cer¬ 
tainly it was a lucky one for the possessors of wealth’s 
special privileges. On lacerated knees they prayed for a 
day of reckoning when a radical would be equivalent to a 
criminal in the blind eyes of law. And hola! the supplica¬ 
tion was answered. Not only could disturbers of indus¬ 
trial equanimity be safely put, but the putting could be 
accomplished to the tune of the National anthem. 

There is only one way for America to prove its sin¬ 
cerity in the war for democracy. It is to follow the 

34i 


THE WANDERER 


example of its allies and open the jail doors to political 
offenders. Will America justify its traditions? 

SELMA MELMS. 

Yes—and immediately! 

What right has any one group of individuals to endanger 
the lives and thrust into prison another group because the 
latter differs in opinion? 

Since when do we interpret the word “democracy” to 
incorporate within itself gag laws, conscription and espion¬ 
age acts? 

Who has robbed it of free press, free speech and free 
assemblage which has been loudly proclaimed a part of 
democratic government? What advance have we made 
over the dark ages, when any expression, or opinion, dif¬ 
ferent from the few, or moneyed interests, is punished by 
15, 20 and 25-year prison terms? 

What improvement is our “democracy” over Czardom, or 
Kaiserdom, when political prisoners of Czarist Russia and 
militaristic Germany received much shorter terms for sim¬ 
ilar so-called offenses? 

The war is over. The example set, even by autocracies, 
in the past has been to set free their political prisoners as 
soon as the contest was ended. Our prisoners were placed 
behind prison walls at a time when war hysteria was at 
its height and all logic and reason cast aside by emotion¬ 
alism. 

It is time we took the “mock” out of democracy and 
acted, instead of prating words. 


342 


THE WANDERER 


WHO IS THE DEVIL AND WHERE 
IS HE? 

“From his brimstone bed, at break of day, 

A-walking the Devil is gone, 

To look at his little snug farm of the world. 

And see how his stock went on” 

—From Southey's “The Devil’s Walk.” 

REV. DAVID DUNN. 

T HE questions are practically one. When we have said 
where the devil is, we have admitted who he is. 

He was in Wilkes Booth but not as a parasite in its 
host. In a real sense he was Wilkes Booth to the extent 
that the latter acted in a certain manner, viz.: “Devilishly.” 
He is you and he is I as we so act. Hence he’s just as 
real as you and I and he’s just as many as you and I and the 
rest of the people. His name indeed is “legion.” There is 
not one devil any more than there is one individual known 
as man or mankind, though we often speak of that abstrac¬ 
tion, of that personalized genus-name. There are as many 
devils as there are many men. There are as many men, 
acting deceivingly, cruelly, selfishly. When we point at a 
crook and say: “There goes a devil,” we are using the term 
in its exact and proper sense. Thus, the late war was in¬ 
deed the work of devils; mustached, bearded, smooth-faced 
devils. 

It may be objected: God created men. Did He therefore 
create devils? To this extent that in his very making man 
a man, i. e., in endowing him with the power to choose a 
higher or a lower way, He established the possibility of a 
man’s making a devil’s choice and of becoming more and 
more of a devil. He could not have created humanity and 
done a whit otherwise. But having created it He has done 
his utmost to help it choose right. 

343 


THE WANDERER 


It may be again objected: Christ was tempted by the 
devil. What devil was that? The older view was that 
the devil was outside Him in physical form. The liberals 
speak of the devil as being within Him. Christ could re¬ 
view the choices and the chances, lower and higher, without 
making and taking them. Therein consisted His tempta¬ 
tion—and ours. But He did it “without sin” for He con¬ 
sistently chose the higher. 

The devils of the world, of which in their totality we 
may figuratively speak of as “The Devil,” are men and 
women and children choosing against God and that love 
which is His soul. 

C. E. MESKIMEN. 

Who is the Devil?—The chief asset of all organized 
superstitions. 

REV. E. L. CLEMENTSON. 

In opening and reading the Word of God, we do not pro¬ 
ceed far in the sacred narrative until we are made ac¬ 
quainted with a being who is the enemy of God and man. 
He is called the “Serpent,” Gen. iii: 1-4, and in Rev. xii: 9 
we learn that this Serpent is none other than the “Devil” 
and “Satan.” He was evidently one of the chiefest if not 
the highest of God’s angelic beings, but he fell through 
pride, Ezek. xxviii: 2-10; Isa. xiv 112-14, and is now a 
prodigal son of God, Job i: 6; ii: 1. Although fallen and in 
rebellion against God, yet so great is he that even “Michael 
the archangel—durst not bring against him a railing accusa¬ 
tion, but said, the Lord rebuke thee,” Jude 9. 

His dwelling place is in the Heavenlies, Eph. vi:i2-i6; 
he had access to heaven and also to the earth, Job i: 7; ii: 2. 
He tempted Eve and Adam, Gen. iii: 1-4, also our Lord 
Jesus, Luke iv 11-13, and now tempts the children of God. 

344 


THE WANDERER 

Those who do not trust God are under his control, Eph. 
ii: 2; II Cor. iv: 4, and he even speaks through the children 
of God when they are off their guard, Mat. xvi: 22, 23, 
and now “the Devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seek¬ 
ing whom he may devour,” I Pe. v:8. The Lord Jesus 
saw him in a prophetic view, as lightning fall from heaven, 
Luke x:i8, and this is to take place in the future, Rev. 
xii:7-9, when he and his angels are cast out of heaven by 
Michael and his hosts. 

He will empower and probably embody himself in the 
Anti-Christ as he did in the Serpent, Gen. iiin-4, and 
Judas, John vi: 70, 71, xiii: 2, see Rev. xiii: 4. He will be 
incarcerated in the bottomless pit for 1,000 years, Rev. 
xx:i-3, and then released without any change, seemingly, 
having been wrought in his nature. He will gather the 
nations which are nominally Christian in the final revolt 
against God, and will then be apprehended and cast into 
“the Lake of Fire” where he will be tormented “day and 
night for the ages of the ages,” Rev. xx :io. God does not 
tell us definitely what will become of Satan when the ages 
have passed, but He may have given a suggestion in Col. 
i: 20; Phil, ii: 10, 11; I Cor. xv: 28. 

MRS. JOHN McGREW. 

The question, “Who is the devil and where is he?” is 
one which demands the sober and serious consideration of 
the thinking individual. 

One reason for this being the fact that Christ is by no 
means silent upon this subject. After allowing for the 
counter-action of the literalness through His possible em¬ 
ployment of oriental imagery and parabolic speech when 
speaking of, or apparently to, the devil, what are we to 
understand as concerns His belief about the devil? 

In one instance He said that a man, Judas, was a devil. 
And then other instances are given of His having cast 
345 


THE WANDERER 

the devil or demons out of certain persons possessed by 
them. 

In regard to His having addressed these demons per¬ 
sonally it is to be noted that He also addressed the wind 
and the sea, rebuking the wind and saying to the sea, 
“peace, be still!” Are we to understand that the wind and 
the sea, forces and elements of nature, are responsible 
personalities ? 

However, be it as it may, we may be positively sure that 
whatever the truth may be as pertains to the devil, Jesus of 
Nazareth was in full possession of it. 

In the fact that He knew perfectly how to cope with him 
in his every phrase, both as concerned Himself and for the 
benefit of others, lies in the summing up of this question in 
its practical and most important aspect. 

C. H. ZOOK. 

Our great adversary, the devil, originally called Lucifer, 
was probably Jehovah’s first creation—“son of the morning 
(of creation,)” Isa. 14:12. He fell from his lofty station 
—heaven—when he seduced our first parents into sin be¬ 
cause of his ambition to be a ruler, “like the Most High,” 
verses 13-14. Later he enticed others from the spirit realm 
to an illicit union with humanity, making it necessary for 
Jehovah to send the flood, destroying the hybrid race. 
I Peter 3:19-20; Jude 6-7; Genesis 6:14. Since their de¬ 
fection Satan and all the demons associated with him have 
been confined to the earth’s atmosphere (tartarus—rendered 
hell, II Peter 2:4 a. v.), seeking various methods of con¬ 
trolling mankind. At the first Advent it was by obsession 
—“He cast out devils”—demons. In India it is by black 
art. In civilized countries it is by spiritualism—spiritism. 
Their contact with humanity has been permitted for reasons 
shown us in the Bible. During Christ’s reign of a thousand 
years Satan is to be bound (Rev. 20:1-3) m order that 
his blinding influence of deception will not work against 
346 


THE WANDERER 

the best interests of humanity, later to be released for a final 
test (Rev. 20:7), after which he is to be destroyed, Heb. 
2:14. 


WOULD GEORGE SAND BE RE¬ 
CEIVED IN GENTEEL SOCIETY 
TO-DAY? 


You think l ought to curse 
her? 

Oh, no! 

Why curse a rose for be¬ 
ing soP 

She simply was for mar¬ 
riage 

Not talented at all; 

Love's variete just chanced 
to be 

Her little all. 

—From Otto Julius Bierbaum’s “The Song of the For¬ 
saken One.” 


So may she to the devil 
Go spin . 

I do not give a farthing 
Of tin; 

I'm watching from the 
stalls here 

Who all the others are: 
No less than five she's had 
so far . 

Hallelujah! 


PHILIP MOELLER. 


W OULD George Sand be received to-day in genteel 
society? Of course I cannot answer with any sort 
of authority; that would mean a most deft mixing of past 
standards with present prejudices, but I should say off¬ 
hand, if you will—but in my heart with utmost conviction 
—that any society in which George Sand did appear, if it 
were not genteel, would immediately become so. After 
all, a genius creates his or her (in George’s case I think 
it was both) own atmosphere. 

Some one, I think it was Lady Colbrook, once told me 
with awe in her voice that at a reception in Venice she had 
met Dr. Pagello who, if you will remember, was George’s 
third or fourth. Now imagine, if one speaks with awe of 


% 347 


THE WANDERER 

the presence of Pagello, what sort of awful admiration 
one would feel in the presence of George. The phrase 
“genteel society” rather phases me. It takes a bit of 
imagination to imagine the two words together. 

Now as to finalities. George would be a success any¬ 
where; if she is in heaven, the place is less dull than it is 
supposed to be; and if she is somewhere else, I am con¬ 
vinced she is holding her own. 

J. W. FLENDER. 

I am not well acquainted with her works and know only 
a little of her history, so would not like to pass opinion 
in public. As to genteel society it seems to me to be of 
many phases. From the artist’s point of view ’twould be 
better to put the question the other way, “Would she receive 
genteel society of to-day?” 

JAMES GREIG BONAR. 

I do not believe George Sand would be received in 
polite society to-day. We are still hedged about by the 
artificialities of the Victorians, who ranked Tennyson be¬ 
fore Shakespeare and turned a deaf ear to Samuel Butler. 
One inheritance was large, and some of it is left. It was 
sorely taxed during the last five years. As a consequence, 
humanity is on a better footing with itself. 

A few decades more, and a re-awakened humanity, kindly 
and tolerant, will draw up new and more flexible specifica¬ 
tions for its individuals to live by. We will cease to burn 
incense to the great god Respectability, and turn to the long- 
neglected virtues, dust them off and make our devotions to 
them. When all this has come to pass I believe George Sand 
would be received. 

JOHN THOMAS. 

Would George Sand be received in present-day society? 
Well, yes, I think so. Our American society, while neither 

348 


THE WANDERER 


very wise nor very good, has always, and I think rightly, 
looked upon sex vagaries with a certain amount of sus¬ 
picion, and the only possible extenuation of an offense 
against the proprieties is downright genius. No money or 
dower of beauty avails aught in the case—intelligent and 
artistic excellence alone must be the open sesame if the 
offender hopes to receive even a chilly welcome at the hands 
of society. 

And yet George Sand was so unconsciously, so per¬ 
fectly, and so naturally immoral that we don’t look upon 
her as we might, say, Mary Wollstonecraft, Kitty O’Shea 
and Madame Hauska. George Sand lived like a young sav¬ 
age and, I am afraid, died like one, for her religion, like her 
republicanism and her socialism, didn’t make much of an 
impression upon her. Perhaps the one characteristic of 
George Sand that seems to cover all her waywardness with 
the mantle of charity is her wide sympathy and the motherly 
way in which she took to her heart those who trampled upon 
her affections. 

I can think of no one that she really harmed—certainly 
her influence upon De Musset, Chopin, Sainte-Beuve, Flau¬ 
bert, Balzac, Dumas, Matthew Arnold, Cherbulioz, Bazin, 
Turgenieff, Elizabeth Barrett Browning, George Eliot, 
Thackeray, John Stuart Mill, Thomas Hardy—to mention 
only a few in that long list of celebrities—was most pro¬ 
found and has been the means of giving us much of what is 
best in our literature. 

I can hardly conceive of George Sand as immoral. I do 
not believe that she knew what morality meant. I think 
rather she was unmoral. And the grace and charm and 
simplicity and the artlessness of her confessions regarding 
herself and her liaisons must have made even Saint Peter 
turn aside' to smile in his sleeve as he let her slip past 
the pearly gate. 


349 


THE WANDERER 


A. P. KNIGHT. 

Our genteel society lives, moves and has its being in 
advertising. The abolition of the social column (speed 
the day!) sounds its death knell. Now if George were 
properly advertised there would be not only a reception to 
her, but she would be pursued like the “Prince of Wails.” 
If some one would say she is so artistically immoral, or that 
she eloped in a pearl studded limousine, or that her toes 
had been kissed at Monte Carlo by the exquisite Duke Smix- 
ture, her position would be as assured as that of Mrs. 
Striveandcant Codfish. You understand that if society 
had twice as much brains, would be half-witted. Society 
has become so mentally exhausted with doing nothing that 
an ape dinner or a Garden-of-Eden swimming party dissi¬ 
pates ennui for a few minutes. As old friend Freud might 
say, they are worn out with much Gomorrahs. 

On the other foot, would George mingle with our con¬ 
somme society leaders? George had brains, and would 
probably leave just before the beginning of the receiving 
line to see “Charlie” Chaplin around the corner. 

The point of this question is Puritanical whether George’s 
lack of virtue would irritate the “sassiety” persons. Prob¬ 
ably so. In public. Of course, George was much more 
moral than the daughter of the Jones-Beresfords who mar¬ 
ried the ancient head of the line of Schmutz-Nichtbaden, but 
alas! she was artistic. Americans are not artistic, society 
is no per cent American, so all joy is Satanic. My guess 
is George would not be invited to the soirees, but would 
be requested to drop around in the afternoon and tell some 
of her wicked stories. 

Z. T. HENDERSON. 

Would Madam George Sand be received in genteel so¬ 
ciety to-day? I unhesitatingly say yes. When our Lord 
350 


THE WANDERER 


ate and drank with sinners, the people marveled. It was 
not the desire of our Lord to descend to their level, but 
that He might lift them up to His level. The level of right 
living and the right thinking, and to teach men the great 
lesson that to impress the weak and unfortunate with lofty 
ideals, there must be times when the strong must mingle 
that the weaker may grow stronger. 

Society measures up to its fullest standard when it is 
able to bring itself into contact with the weak and unfor¬ 
tunate for the purpose of reform, at the same time main¬ 
taining its own high standard. Many wayward boys and 
girls, women and men, would resurrect their lives if they 
were received and encouraged by society. Such contact 
would serve as a mirror to their lives and characters, and 
they would incline to right living and right-thinking, and 
their lives would develop into an automatic reform. 

The best people to-day, unlike the masses, are broad 
enough to see and admire the good even in the bad. Al¬ 
though the later part of Madam George Sand’s life may 
not have been in every way perfect, and perhaps not con¬ 
ducive to the best morals, the world is bound to admit 
the worth of her literary contributions. God uses the worst 
sometimes in order to bring out the best, and if Madam 
George Sand were living to-day genteel society would make 
no mistake in using her, that her best might be extracted. 

MATILDA J. KEARN. 

I do not think genteel society of to-day would know 
enough to open its doors to George Sand, for if there is 
anything genteel society loves it is to be stupid, and it nat¬ 
urally hates the competition of any one with brains. Of 
course, society’s excuse would be that they did not want 
George because of George’s scandalous history, but the real 
reason would be that the ladies of genteel society would be 
afraid that George would walk off with all the men. Of 

351 


THE WANDERER 


course, George would do this very thing if she was per¬ 
mitted to enter, yet even at that it would not be so bad, for 
she would demoralize and monopolize them slowly, for 
“one at a time” was always her motto. 

If genteel society had a few more Georges in it, it would 
not be the dull, stupid place it is to-day; not that it is more 
moral than was George—it is only more artistically im¬ 
moral. All its vices are kept hidden, under cover, without 
any dash or effectiveness to them. 

George Sand’s own estimate of society was as follows: 
“Do not take seriously that aimless, incoherent thing called 
society, for it has no seriousness in it. To prattle trifles, 
forgotten as soon as uttered; to hear dull discussion into 
which taste forbids one to enter—this is gaining experience 
of the world but it is idle employment.” 


IS THERE ANYTHING TO FEAR 
FROM AN OPEN FIELD OF 
FREE DISCUSSION? 

Buddha said: “Three things shine before the world 
and cannot be hidden . The moon, O disciples, illum¬ 
ines the world and cannot be hidden; the sun, O dis¬ 
ciples, illumines the world and cannot be hidden; and 
the truth illumines the world and cannot be hidden . 
There is no secrecy about them ” 

—Dr. Paul Carus in “The Gospel of Buddha.” 

ALLEN McCURDY, Secretary, Committee of Forty-eight, 
New York. 

T HE extraordinary thing is that such a question should 
be asked in America in the year 1919. 

Free discussion has been the soul of Anglo-Saxon civili¬ 
zation for 700 years. Discussion is only another name for 
democracy. Without discussion democracy vanishes, and 
352 


THE WANDERER 

in its stead appears the hideous face of despotism and 
tyranny. 

There is nothing to fear from free discussion; there is 
everything to fear from its suppression. This is not my 
answer to your question; it is the answer of the soul of 
America which has expressed itself throughout the cen¬ 
turies. 

The hope of the present lies in the fact that Americans 
are beginning to discuss. Free discussion becomes a fact, 
not by reason of protests against suppression, but by the 
normal expression of honest opinions held by individual 
citizens. This honest expression of individual opinion is 
becoming widespread and earnest. By the exercise of our 
rights to know, to think and to utter, democracy is begin¬ 
ning to function and will soon wipe away every vestige of 
tyranny and despotism which seeks to destroy by espionage 
and censorship the impalpable forces of the human soul. 

REV. ALBERT C. DIEFFENBACH, Editor, The Chris¬ 
tian Register. 

One thing we should fear, namely, the failure of the con¬ 
servative forces to meet false propaganda with true propa¬ 
ganda. To meet error with a bludgeon or with incantations 
about law and order is forceful and fervid, but, where does 
it land us? How many opponents of our States does it 
silence and subdue? None. Such a course only multiplies 
their numbers and their protests. 

When we put as much heart and brain into conserving 
and improving our democracy as the discontented and dis¬ 
inherited put into their passion for revolution, we shall 
easily save our country and insure its stability, and the 
welfare and happiness of all its people. 

REV. GEORGE AVERY NEELD. 

\ 

No. Free discussion is far more beneficial than deleteri¬ 
ous. There are various reasons for this. First, a man al- 

353 


THE WANDERER 

ways feels better when he has been given an opportunity 
to express himself whether in personal convictions or 
toward any question under consideration. 

Second, free discussion has a tendency to clear the atmos¬ 
phere of suspicion and doubt concerning the position and 
motives of others and promotes a better understanding. 
Even if we do not agree, it is safer for us to know where 
each other stands. Pernicious philosophies lurking under¬ 
ground do far more damage than those doctrines expressed 
in speech and known to the community. 

Third, free discussion develops the ability to think and 
to champion our cause. This right every man should have. 
The New England town meeting was a great educator of 
citizenry and of parliamentary ability. 

Fourth, free discussion is the strongest hope of democ¬ 
racy. Without it democratic institutions are meaningless. 

Fifth, free and open discussion gives us opportunity to 
know where responsibility is to be located, and certain sen¬ 
timents that are not for the public good. 

The only check that should be placed upon free discus¬ 
sion is when it incites to violence, or is intentionally traitor¬ 
ous to the fundamental principles upon which the govern¬ 
ment is established. This type of free discussion is pro¬ 
vided for by the law of the land. 

DR. N. H. MOTSINGER. 

No. How else is a progressive intelligent Nation to ward 
off imperialism and drift towards monarchy as all other 
wealthy republics have done when surplus wealth has accu¬ 
mulated in the hands of a few? Without free speech and 
press how are the masses ever going to get access to mo¬ 
nopolized raw material, iron, coal, oil, lumber, water-power, 
and break these monopolies as well as those monopolizing 
food products? 

Without free speech, how will we get the espionage 

354 


THE WANDERER 


act repealed and free 1,500 political prisoners, in jail, not 
for disloyalty or acting as spies, but because they might 
build a political party that would deprive profiteers of their 
fat jobs. 

What harm would a few fool anarchists do among a 
Nation of 100,000,000 sensible people? The powers that 
threw Berger out of Congress see in the Nonpartisan 
League as much “red” as they do in Socialism. The Repub¬ 
licans will have a plank in their platform to repeal the 
espionage act or they might as well nominate Wilson and 
declare for a monarchy. A combination of the Nonpartisan 
League and Socialists could elect the next President. 

MEYER SAVRANSKY. 

The essence of a democracy is the right of the people— 
all the people, alien and native, conservative and radical, 
pro-government and anti-government—to discuss frankly, 
freely, and openly all that they desire. We made a gigantic 
sacrifice to make democracy world wide. Why fear free 
discussions, the foundation of democracy, for which we 
fought ? 

Discussions, if we are to have them, must be free and 
open. If there be sinister forces in our midst, we must 
permit them to come out in the open with their vicious 
propaganda, so that we may not be stabbed in the back. 
Secret diplomacy, secret discussions, and secret propa¬ 
ganda, ruined the world and will ruin every institution. 
Let us have no fear of an open field of free discussion, 
but let us encourage it for our own good. 

We have nothing to fear from an open field of free dis¬ 
cussion. We have nothing to lose except our bigotry and 
narrow-mindedness. We have a better and more enlight¬ 
ened world to gain. We ought to fear those who fear open 
discussions for there must be some “dirty work” con¬ 
nected with the things they do if they fear the light. 

355 


THE WANDERER 
G. W. PORTER. 

For the individual, in many instances, it has proved dis¬ 
astrous. To this country it has brought a “new birth of 
freedom.” We know from past history that “free discus¬ 
sion,” especially of truth, is often accompanied with dan¬ 
ger. Wendell Phillips, Love joy and Garrison tried it. Phil¬ 
lips was driven from the rostrum, Garrison was led through 
the streets of classic Boston with a rope around his neck 
and Love joy was killed and his printing press thrown into 
the river. By their dauntless and “free discussion” these 
fearless men were instrumental in giving this Nation a new 
birth of freedom.” 

The men and women who fought in “an open field for 
free discussion” for prohibition were denounced as enemies 
of personal liberty. And the men who battled for woman s 
suffrage were characterized as old women, pictured as stay¬ 
ing at home feeding the baby with a spoon, while their wives 
were on some political platform gesticulating their umbrel¬ 
las and discussing politics. 

Who was it that bore the sneers and jeers and persecu¬ 
tions of past years ? It was those who did not fear to enter 
into an “open field of free discussion.” Had it not been 
for these fearless men and women, reformers of the past 
and present, we would not have had the freedom of the 
slave, so long the curse of this Republic. 

All honor and praise to the noble men and women who, 
without fear, entered the arena of life, and with the sword 
of truth “fought in an open field” and by “free discussion” 
brought this country from darkness to light and made it 
the freest, greatest and most prosperous Nation of all the 
earth. 


THE WANDERER 


SHOULD AMERICA BE USED AS 
AN ASYLUM FOR POLITICAL 
REFUGEES OF OTHER COUN¬ 
TRIES? 

“/ was a stricken deer that left the herd 
Long since; with many an arrow deep infixed 
My panting side was charged , when I withdrew 
To seek a tranquil death in distant shades ” 

—William Cowper. 

CHARLES EDWARD RUSSELL. 

A T all times, with the most jealous care, we ought to 
guard and preserve the right of asylum for political 
refugees. It is one of the valuable possessions of civilized 
man, a safeguard against tyranny and a factor for progress. 
Nevertheless, a difference is to be marked between America 
as an inviolable asylum for the political refugee and Amer¬ 
ica to be the illimitable haven for the surplus working 
populations of other lands. 

ALBERT DE SILVER, National Civil Liberties Bureau. 

It depends upon your conception of America. If you 
believe that our country is fixed and rigid in its political 
ideals, both for itself and others; if you believe that it is 
timid of new ideas and that the unfamiliar makes it afraid; 
if you believe that in the interest of maintaining the estab¬ 
lished order everywhere, it is glad to return unheard to 
their oppressors those who believe themselves to be op¬ 
pressed ; then beyond doubt America should not be used as 
an asylum for political refugees. If, on the other hand, 
you look upon our country as one peopled by a citizenry 
357 


THE WANDERER 


capable of choosing wisely among conflicting teachings, if 
you look upon it as eager to profit by the lessons of the 
past and to build upon its existing institutions a newer and 
better freedom for all; if you believe that it should welcome 
and examine the experience of others; if you believe that 
our country holds to that inherent justice which gives to 
every man the right fully to present his case before the bar 
of world opinion, and above all, if you believe in the cher¬ 
ished traditions which gave asylum upon our shores to 
Kosciusko, to Puren and to Rudovitch, you will feel as I 
do that the right of political asylum in America is one which 
we cannot afford to see discarded for the sake not only of 
the political refugees themselves, but also for the sake 
of our own idealism, our generosity and our sense of 
justice. 

THEODORE OEBEL. 

Yes. The sacred rights of asylum for a political refugee 
has existed for centuries in most every civilized country, 
and especially so in England and in France. Why should 
the United States, the freest country of all, the country 
of liberty and democracy, be an exception to this rule? 

My opinion is that if a political refugee in this country 
abides the law, he should be protected the same as any citi¬ 
zen ; if, on the contrary, he uses his stay here for inter¬ 
political intrigues, he should be sent where he came from; 
in other words, be deported. 

REV. C. SMOGER, St. Stanislaus’ Rectory, Steuvenbille, 
Ohio. 

The history of the United States from its very inception 
illustrates in terms that cannot be mistaken the advantage 
of harboring people who, from various motives, but chiefly 
because of political, religious or industrial discriminations, 
if not oppression, in their own fatherland, sought shelter 
358 


THE WANDERER 


under our system of government. The parasites from for¬ 
eign shores should not thrive in the American atmosphere; 
the ideal and sober-minded from elsewhere ought to pros¬ 
per and diffuse in turn those qualities which should per¬ 
meate the life of a Nation. 

As long as the language of the refugees in our country 
shall breathe the spirit of well-ordered freedom, the same 
spirit of solidarity they so loyally displayed during the 
whole course of the great war, now happily ended, having 
democracies on all sides for our neighbors, we need have 
no anxiety as to our future. However, to insure to our¬ 
selves the co-operation of others in advancing the cause 
of good government, we should teach, cultivate and encour¬ 
age religion, morality and knowledge in the schools. 


VICTOR SLOANE. 

Should America be used as an asylum for political 
refugees of other countries? What is a political refugee? 
He is one who escapes from the tyranny of the country 
where he has struggled for freedom and lost. 

For ages mankind has struggled for freedom against 
tyranny. Here in America the struggle culminated in the 
Revolutionary War, which, because of its success, did not 
produce political refugees. In order to preserve their 
liberties, so dearly bought, the Constitution was so drawn 
as to protect the ideals for which they fought. 

Up until the entry of the United States in the great 
world war this country was a haven of refuge for the 
oppressed of other lands, and they came hither in large 
numbers. But now, with the great change that has come 
over Europe, and that which is still pending, in all parts 
of the world, the question is, are we going to have politicah 
refugees seeking a haven of rest here? 


359 


THE WANDERER 


SHOULD CHURCH PROPERTY BE 
EXEMPT FROM TAXATION? 

“The schoolboy whips his taxed top; the beardless 
youth manages his taxed horse with a taxed bridle , on 
a taxed road; and the dying Englishman, pouring his 
medicine , which has paid seven per cent , flings himself 
back on his chinz bed f which has paid 22 per cent , and 
expires in the arms of an apothecary , who has paid a 
license of a hundred pounds for the privilege of put - 
ting him to death ” 

—Sidney Smith. 
REV. DAVID R. PIPER. 

S HOULD church property be exempt from taxation? 

Briefly, here are many reasons, gleaned from the word 
of God, clearly showing that church property should not be 
exempt from taxation. 

This great Commonwealth cannot be successfully man¬ 
aged without money, it is every true citizen’s duty to do his 
bit, and God is willing, anxious, and able, to do his—“the 
earth is the Lord’s and the fullness thereof.” Ps. xxivri. 

To exempt the church property from taxation means to 
owe the State, and God tells us that we should “owe no 
man anything.”—Rom. xiii: 8. Every one should know 
that the living God of heaven and earth is not a beggar, 
neither is He a pauper; and wastes no time tramping about 
begging for favors. On the other hand, He is manly, hon¬ 
est, able and just, and for God’s children to cry out for 
exemptions and play the baby act, is to set a very low stand¬ 
ard on God’s righteousness. 

This very question of taxation or tribute was asked the 
Savior, and as Christ is “our wisdom, our righteousness 
and our redemption”—let us see how the Great Teacher 
360 


THE WANDERER 


handled this question. “And the Pharisees and Herodians 
asked him whether it was lawful to pay taxes to Rome? 
He called for a penny bearing the image and superscrip¬ 
tion of the Roman Emperor, and said, ‘Render unto Caesar 
the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that 
are God’s/”—Mat. xxii 115-22. And thus our Savior laid 
down the only principle by which this vexed question can 
be settled. 

Should Caesar wish to show his gratitude to God for past 
and present blessings, and out of a loving and thankful 
heart wants to cut or reduce the tax on church property a 
little, why that is up to Caesar. Jesus said to the apostle 
“lest we should offend, take the coin from the mouth of 
the fish and give unto them for me and thee.”—Matt, 
xvii: 27. Why try to squirm and squeeze out of our duty ? 

Let us come up manly and in the spirit of the Master 
pay out debt—God, Caesar and every one will think all the 
more of us, and God shall be glorified. 

GRACE D. BREWER. 

No, indeed, church property should not be exempt from 
taxation. When church property is exempted from taxa¬ 
tion it places an involuntary burden on the people of a 
community who must supply the income to State and 
municipality that otherwise would have been raised by the 
church paying its fair share of taxes. In this way, we, 
who profess to believe in freedom in religious matters, force 
people who otherwise would not contribute a single penny 
to the church, to support religious institutions. 

Governments have been endeavoring to divorce the 
church from the State and yet under our present system of 
exempting churches from taxation we are forcing the State 
to support the church. A religion should pay its own way 
just as anything else that survives under this competitive 
age must do. Any religion truly worthy of support could 
be self-supporting, easily. 


361 


THE WANDERER 


We know of the vast sums church organizations spend 
buying business blocks, etc., and it is only fair to assume 
that a portion of this amount should be expended in taxes 
which goes to keep up the State, a thing al 1 churches profess 
they are laboring to maintain. 

Many church organizations are far more able to pay their 
just share of taxes than are the poor on whose shoulders 
an extra burden must fall, in supplying the money the 
State must have, because of the exemption the State offers 
the religious confederation to which they belong and in 
whose creed they believe. 

Churches demand and expect protection from State and 
national governments and we ask why should they expect 
anything from a Government they are unwilling to support 
to the extent of a just tax on their financial holdings? 
Why should they expect something for nothing? 

SAMUEL C. MORRIS. 

In expressing an opinion whether church property should 
be exempt from taxation, it is a fact that so long as church 
property is exempt from taxation, separation of Church 
and State is not absolute, and if all people are to enjoy 
full religious liberty, as provided by the Constitution of 
the United States, this condition should not exist. 

Furthermore, the estimated present-day value of church 
property is close to $2,000,000,000. It is impossible to get 
an exact taxation value throughout the country, but we 
will assume that the average taxation would be about 
per cent, or, in other words, taxes which the various States 
would receive in the event the property was taxed, would 
amount to approximately $30,000,000. Using a very liberal 
figure, I am going to assume that 50 per cent of the people 
in the country attend church. On this basis, another 50 
per cent are paying taxes of approximately $15,000,000 
a year as their share of maintaining charges from which 

1362 ' 


THE WANDERER 


they derive no benefit and which is, on them, an unjust 
taxation, as all persons in this country pay taxes, either 
directly or indirectly. 

Many church corporations have grown enormously rich, 
partly as a result of non-taxable real estate, and many 
preachers, priests, etc., are able to live luxuriously without 
contributing to the actual production of wealth to the coun¬ 
try, partly due to the exemption of taxation on church 
property. 

In view of these facts, I can arrive at but one conclusion, 
which is, in justice to all—church property should not be 
exempt from taxation. 

F. C. GROTE. 

Under all forms of government, from time immemorial, 
churches or places of worship indicative of some form of 
religion, have been in existence, whether the church con¬ 
trolled the State or the State controlled the church, or 
church and State were absolutely separate. Need of re¬ 
ligious worship has always been recognized for the salva¬ 
tion of human soulsr Consequently since the people need 
churches,, the people should maintain them, in part at least. 
So when in Pennsylvania the constitution was adopted, a 
provision was made allowing the Legislature to exempt from 
taxation certain property, among which are “actual places 
of worship.” 

And the Legislature, the people’s spokesman, has since 
seen fit to exercise its right and has passed a law exempt¬ 
ing churches from taxation. Now that the custom and law 
has been so firmly established, why ask the question and 
stir up things and give the atheists and agnostics a chance 
to endeavor to relieve themselves of supporting the church? 
If churches were not here, what would become of us ? 

Some time ago there was an endeavor on the part of the 
preachers that they get together and form a union for their 
mutual protection in elevating their living conditions and 

363 


THE WANDERER 


providing a minimum wage, and if their terms were refused, 
they were “to let the people go to hell.” And so, lest 
such a thing might happen, it is well that churches be ex¬ 
empted from taxation so that they can pay their divines a 
proper stipend and thus save mankind from everlasting 
damnation. 

LUKE SANFORD. 

What is taxation? It is the toll collected from every 
one to support the Government. What is the Government ? 
It is the group of politicians in power. We may call that 
institution all the sweet names we like, pass laws to send 
every man to jail who calls it names, or we may by law 
give it the attribute of divinity, as did Charles I, it still 
remains a collection of politicians. 

How do the politicians who are the Government remain 
in power? By spending all their time establishing them¬ 
selves in their jobs and providing for their re-election. 
Consequently they neglect their duties, if a politician can be 
presumed to have any. 

What forces do they use to keep themselves in power? 
Well, they give away soft jqbs to people who control votes; 
they give away public privileges to rich corporations for 
campaign funds; they change the laws so that independent 
voting is illegal. 

But how does the church come in ? The church is always 
for the politicians. Perhaps not the barkeeper sort, but 
the plaid-vest politician, the silk-hat, frock-coat platitudinist 
is always supported by the church. 

If politicians at Washington say war is right, so do 
ministers, although Jesus Christ says it is wrong. If the 
congregation is rich, the preacher praises ambition and suc¬ 
cess, although the camel has not yet passed through the 
needle’s eye. In short, the church is the bulwark of reac¬ 
tion, and has no more to do with Jesus Christ than has a 
synagogue. 


364 


THE WANDERER 


Obviously, since the church supports the politicians by 
propaganda, it should not be required to support it by 
money. Therefore, the church should not be taxed. 


SHOULD WE LIFT THE EMBARGO 
ON RUSSIA? 


“How is it? Must they starve again? Starve? 
Starve? This an old story, and so terribly wearisome . 
It is a bore to you in Moscow and Petersburg, but here 
—when from morning till evening they stand under 
your windows or at your door, and you cannot go along 
the street without hearing the same sentence: ‘We 
have not tasted food for two days; we have eaten our 
last oats; what shall we do? the last end has come; 
must we die? 9 and so on. Here, however shameful it 
is to acknowledge it, it has already become so irksome 
that you begin to look on them as your enemies! 

“Yes, to us it is a bore . But still, they have such a 
longing to eat, such a longing to live, such a longing for 

happiness, for love - 99 

—Tolstoi's “In the Midst of the Starving. 


LIEUT.-COL. B. ROUSTAM BEK. 

T HE aim of a blockade is to weaken the enemy by cutting 
off military aid from the outside, and by reducing his 
economic resources. The blockade of Germany and Austria 
was successful because these countries were comparatively 
small in size and densely populated. They depended largely 
upon the importation of raw materials. The blockade 
practically isolated them on all sides. The neutrals were 
unable to assist them, partly because of the blockade and 
partly because they themselves lacked the necessary supplies. 
Germany and Austria, therefore, succumbed to the blockade 
which brought on the revolt of their exhausted population. 

365 


THE WANDERER 


Russia is too large to blockade in any such manner. The 
Allies are only able to cut off her imports from the seas. 
This affects her general industry and imposes hardships 
on her industrial centers, but leaves the bulk of the Russian 
population, the peasants, practically untouched. The 
peasants gradually return to a primitive agricultural state 
and continue their trade with Asia, which remains open to 
them, and which has always been Russia’s most important 
customer. 

Russian industry, although seriously damaged by the 
blockade, still remains sufficient to supply the huge army 
and the workers. The privation of the blockade falls upon 
the upper classes and the bourgeoisie. The Allies, there¬ 
fore, by their blockade are merely starving those whom they 
pretend to help. 

In spite of the blockade the Red Army grows stronger 
and stronger and is victorious on all fronts. On the other 
hand the blockade, cutting off the vast supplies of Russian 
raw materials, prevents the economic recovery of Europe, 
does great damage to the Allies themselves, and is a direct 
cause of high prices and industrial unrest in America. 
English industrial life was dependent upon the raw materials 
purchased at low prices and on easy terms from Russia. 
If the Allies continue the blockade they will only irretrieva¬ 
bly weaken themselves, while Soviet Russia grows gradually 
stronger and more self-reliant. The experience of two 
years has proved that the blockade produced nothing but 
industrial disorganization throughout the world. The Allies 
will be compelled to lift the blockade to restore normal con¬ 
ditions at home, where the taxpayers are reluctant to pay 
such a high price for their own ruin. I have never heard 
that Kolchak, Denikin or Yudemtch ever paid anything for 
the blockade. 


366 


THE WANDERER 


DR. S. B. M’CORMICK, Chancellor of the University of 
Pittsburg. 

I do not know. Land of mystery always, Russia to-day 
is terra incognita. In general we know that in Russia are a 
certain number of millions of people, that those people are 
prevailingly Christian, kindly, goodhearted, well disposed, 
industrious, mostly illiterate, but potentially intelligent, 
somewhat backward in civilization and in the conveniences 
thereof. 

We know, too, that the Government is controlled by men 
who are revolutionists in government, industry, ethics and 
all the rest. To have dealings with these men is difficult. 
Relationship between two men or groups of men, to one of 
whom the Ten Commandments are authoritative and to the 
other “bunk,” is practically impossible. However, the fol¬ 
lowing principles can operate and the embargo predicated 
thereon: 

First—The American people can assure the Russian peo¬ 
ple of their sympathy and willingness to help. The friend¬ 
ship between the two nations has been unbroken. The 
Russian people, by their own fault or otherwise, are suffer¬ 
ing and are in need of help. Let them know that the heart 
of America is truly responsive to their cry for aid. 

Second—The American people can give practical expres¬ 
sion to this sympathy by getting food to Russia and by 
establishing credit so as to provide farm implements, ma¬ 
chinery and so forth in the measure in which guarantees 
can be made that financial obligations will be honestly met. 

Third—The American people can say to Russia just what 
Great Britain, France, America and others claim for them¬ 
selves, that the Russian people must determine their own 
form of government, settle their own internal affairs, and 
endure the evils and consequences of misrule until they 
have courage and intelligence enough to establish order, 
security, tranquillity, with all the blessings thereof. 

367 


THE WANDERER 

If these principles in operation involve the lifting of the 
embargo, so be it. 

ANNETTE THACKWELL JOHNSON. 

I should like to answer the question by asking another. 
For whose benefit is the embargo being kept up? For 
Kolchak and Denikin ? Perhaps the embargo exists in the 
hope of aiding the down-trodden sufferers under Bolshevist 
atrocities ? But surely an embargo that lays a whole coun¬ 
try under threat of starvation is an odd way of assisting 
the afflicted. I should prefer to be shot than starved to 
death. A speedy death rather than a lingering one say I. 
Give me a Bolshevist bullet rather than a two years’ Allied 
starvation. 

I have seen famine sufferers in India. That I remain 
sane after it speaks volumes for the human capacity to en¬ 
dure—other people’s sufferings. But when I realize that we 
are deliberately forcing vast peoples to face such hellish 
torture it makes me wonder why God refrains from wiping 
us and our hypocrisies from the face of the earth. 

But after all, perhaps the embargo sounds more stringent 
than it really is. Greed can accomplish what mercy and 
the love of God seem unable to. On page io of the New 
York Times for November 19, there appeared a letter from 
Chicago packers, addressed to the Soviet Bureau in New 
York City, of which what follows is a copy: 

“Referring to our conversation this A. M., should you be 
so kind as to place a contract with us, you have our assur¬ 
ance that it will not only be a pleasure to give you all the 
assistance possible in obtaining permits, shipping, etc., or 
in any other way we can expedite the shipment.” 

It is said similar letters soliciting orders were received 
from other Chicago packers. And I have also heard that' 
English firms are as amenable to persuasion as those of 
Chicago. 


368 


THE WANDERER 


There remains the fact that Russia is the only cash mar¬ 
ket in the world. Gentlemen, why not take advantage of 
it—openly ? 

JAMES J. MARSHALL. 

It is a principle of Americanism that the people of any 
country have the right to determine the nature of their 
government. President Wilson has crystallized this theory 
in his phrase “the self-determination of peoples.” 

The Russian people have expressed their preference for 
a Soviet Government, which has been duly elected and has 
the approval of a vastly larger majority in Russia than has 
the Democratic Administration in the United States. 

The Allies, under the leadership of France, whose interest 
lies chiefly in their Russian loans, have ordained that the 
Soviet Government of Russia must be destroyed. They 
have attempted, through financial and military support to 
accomplish this object by force, and have failed. Contact 
with the Soviet troops has only converted American and 
other Allied troops to sympathy with Russia, so that our 
Russian policy has undergone a complete change and our 
troops have been ordered withdrawn. 

This futile policy of suppression is being continued in the 
blockade. While at peace with Russia, our State policy 
endorses a blockade. The result has been the unification 
of all Russian factions in support of the Bolsheviki, who 
at present are in control of the Soviet form of administra¬ 
tion. 

The purpose of the blockade is to defeat the international 
triumph of Socialism. This policy savors of youthfulness. 
Socialism can only be destroyed by destroying the evils 
which make it necessary. 

DR. WILLIAM OLEON. 

By all means, yes. What is the crime Russia has com¬ 
mitted in the eyes of civilized nations, which compel her 

369 


THE WANDERER 


millions of women and children to starve, sick and wounded 
human beings to remain without drugs or medicines of 
any kind? Is it because she among the nations of the 
world took for granted the noble ideals for which millions 
were sacrificed, and tried to make them real? Or is it be¬ 
cause she tried in humble manner to make the world a more 
desirable and a better place to live for the under dogs? 

What is it that despite the public voices in all the coun¬ 
tries diplomats defy the will of the people and dare to 
establish under the old hypocrital disguise first “the cordon 
sanitaire” and of late “the barbed wire fence ,, against the 
spread of Bolshevism? In my desire to find justification for 
an act which brings untold miseries to millions of people, 
I am at a loss to see the wisdom of it. 

How could the Christians of the world remain in their 
churches and pray for those acts or find words which would 
ease their conscience? It is true, the war has hardened 
our sense of justice, but never before could murder be per¬ 
petrated on such a vast scale and remain unpunished. But 
punishment will not be done by the hands of the all-merciful 
God, but rather by the vengeance of the awakened con¬ 
science of an enlightened people. 

To lift the embargo on Russia is not sufficient, it must 
include Austria, which sutlers at the hands of the demo¬ 
cratic countries, for she, too, trusted naively the old 
diplomats. 

Russia is starving, Russia is begging the world to be let 
alone, to become herself again. 

If nothing else is capable of moving the hardened souls 
of our public servants paid and employed by us to protect 
our good names, then in the name of humanity, let us 
insist that the embargo, which is the modem Damocles 
sword be removed and necessary food shipped into Russia 
to relieve the agony of dying children and mothers. 

I have left out of consideration every economical reason 
to show that to remove the embargo will be of tremendous 

370 


THE WANDERER 


help to the starving world at large. I am governed solely 
by human considerations mistaken as they may be in our 
commercial age, yet I want to think that there are still 
enough Christians in the world to whom the precepts of 
Christ are not mere hollow sounds. 


WHAT DO YOU THINK OF BILLY 
SUNDAY? 

In Pittsburg, Saturday, January 4, 1914, Billy Sunday 
made this prayer: “Before I came to Pittsburg, I sort*a 
had cold feet, Jesus . But you are as great in this city as 
in the little brush country . / am amazed, I am dazed, 
Vm astounded, and Pm humiliated when I see the en¬ 
thusiasm and the spirit with which these people wish to 
helpr 

DR. JOSEPH SILVERMAN. 

I F Christians continue to stand for and encourage and sup¬ 
port Billy Sunday and his ilk, they deserve all the con¬ 
demnation and ridicule that is heaped upon them for such 
a travesty of religion for which they are responsible. Billy 
Sunday is a positive detriment to genuine religious propa¬ 
ganda. 

REV. J. SALA LELAND, Methodist Protestant Church, 
Beaver Falls. 

Billy Sunday is an unusual man with a real grasp on 
the problems of organization, finance and Christian evan¬ 
gelism. 

He is the head of his organization, and understands how 
to keep them sweet, active and Christian. His influence 
is such as to hold their respect and love, and to keep them 
at their best in his great work. 

37i 


THE WANDERER 


Mr. Sunday does not forget finance. He knows that 
money is necessary. He is very fair in his appeal for sup¬ 
port and finds many willing contributors who are happy 
to have a part in supporting and encouraging his work. 

Mr. Sunday is a strong, entertaining, convincing, practi¬ 
cal, spiritual Christian minister. He is at his best when he 
hits every day sin between the eyes. He knows where men 
live, what they think, talk and do. He is always anxious 
to be the means of helping and saving, and he gives him¬ 
self to the limit of his powers to turn men to righteous¬ 
ness. He is a sincere man of prayer and consecration. 

GEORGE E. MACDONALD, Editor of The Truth 
Seeker . 

The man belongs to a class whose members are known 
collectively, I believe, as “spielers, 1 ” of whom specimens are 
to be observed at places of popular resort, in front of tents 
offering shows or entertainments, making the ballyhoo. 
I intend no disrespect to the fraternity of fakers in so 
classifying him, nor the conductors of vendues, in adding 
that, by virtue of his gifts, he would not be out of place 
among them. He holds up a certain commodity and asks 
for takers. As a “spieler” he demonstrates his exhibition, 
and then invites the audience into the annex, which with 
the showman is the “blow-off,” and with the evangelist is 
the company of the converted. He is a superfaker. In 
branches of his profession he would carry the title of 
“king.” The falsehoods of which he has been convicted 
are trade fictions. His slang and cant belong to the craft 
(a word that has degenerated into graft). The calling is 
a questionable one, but having adopted it he is hardly to 
be censured for working it for all it is worth. The blame 
falls upon those who put him forward and promote him; 
the contempt on those who let themselves be taken in. 
You know the word by which they are described—one is 

372 


THE WANDERER 


said to be born every minute, and facts are not altered by 
calling it the second birth. I “think” little of Billy Sunday; 
I observe and classify him. 

R. K. SIMPSON. 

I think that Billy Sunday is one of the greatest teachers 
of the Gospel that ever lived. 

REV. CHARLES E. SNYDER, First Unitarian Church, 
Sioux City, Iowa. 

Of the many undesirable influences in America now, Billy 
Sunday is one. He represents the most of which we ought 
to be rid. Professionally he engages to revivify the 
churches and the religious life of a community; practically 
he spends the energy of those churches and leads the re¬ 
ligious life of the community into an inevitable reaction, 
all of which is so evident wherever he has been that prob¬ 
ably no community of churches would organize to hire 
him again. Their second condition is worse than their 
first. 

Sunday’s methods and appeal are born of unblushing ma¬ 
terialism. It is purely a money-making game, carried on 
by hold-up methods. It clothes profiteering in a religious 
garb—an old game of which the pure in mind have said 
things in terms of money changers in the temple. His 
methods in finance are as brutal as the most outstanding 
monopolist who holds up the consumer for all the traffic 
will bear, and the influence of it is that it leads more people 
into that vicious interpretation of life and religion where 
the profits and the care of God are confused into one 
blurred definition. 

The vulgarity of the man knows no limit. He drags 
sacred matter into the dirt for advertising’s sake. His 
coarseness and profanity make religion cheap or they 

373 


THE WANDERER 


make it a thing of ridicule for those who enjoy his bur¬ 
lesque performances. He teaches hate and hell, and 
appeals to all the primitive passions from which a war- 
shocked world needs to get away. 

He appeals to the mob-sense—the unthinking, irrational, 
sharply partisan sense of the mob. Clothing his expression 
in religious terms, he uses the psychology of the soap-box 
orator and gains his influence by his appeal to the soap¬ 
box elements of the human mind. This type of revivalist 
stands in religion exactly where the political demagogue 
stands in public affairs, with an appeal to prejudice, hatred, 
selfish interpretations of the purpose of life, and class 
sense. His influence is the same as that of some loose- 
minded orator haranguing his hearers on to mob action. 
If people fall to-day into the psychology of the mob to 
settle political and social problems that confront us, Mr. 
Sunday is one of the powerful influences who have culti¬ 
vated that way in them. 

He is worse than an anachronism, to be viewed with 
curiosity. He is worse than a mountebank, to be laughed 
at and be forgotten. He is a menace to the spirit of 
thoughtful democracy in religion and in public affairs. 

MRS. EVA TURNER. 

Whenever I hear any one running down Rev. William 
Sunday, I always think of the fable of the fox and the 
grapes, and most of the knockers of that gentleman are 
simply jealous of him. 

Rev. William Sunday is one of the most wonderful 
speakers I have ever heard, for he is not only convincing, 
but he is eloquent, and he expresses himself in simple direct 
language that even the most uneducated can understand. 
He has a pleading way with him that goes straight to the 
heart—that is if the listener has a heart—and in most cases 
if the heart is sinful it becomes changed and purified. 

374 


THE WANDERER 


Besides being a wonderful speaker, Mr. Sunday is a 
wonderful psychologist. In the first place, his advance 
agency is a part of his psychology, for he knows how to 
get people stirred up until they await his coming with fervor 
and an interest that amount almost to a frenzy. In the 
second place, his tabernacle is a part of his psychology, for 
he knows that if the people are not curious enough to 
want to see him, they will likely want to see what the 
inside of the tabernacle is like. He bases much of his 
success upon his play of the curiosity of mankind. But 
his greatest piece of psychology is the way in which he 
dashes and springs at his audience. This means that from 
the first minute he interests them, and after that he finds 
it an easy matter to hold his audience. 

I know that every one will not agree with me about Rev. 
Mr. Sunday, but to me he is a brilliant, fascinating man, 
upright and Christian, and I think his name is worthy to be 
placed among the names of the great reformers of the 
world, among the Martin Luthers, the Savonarolas, the John 
Wesleys, the Calvins, and the Moodys, and many others. 
And if the younger generation would heed the Rev. Mr. 
Sunday instead of making fun of him, they would be doing 
the best thing for themselves and for the Nation at large. 

I have also a great admiration for Mrs. Sunday as well, 
and believe that she is as kind and gentle a Christian 
woman as ever lived. The good that she has done cannot 
be measured. And I hope that the Sundays will go to 
every wicked city in the world and teach the Gospel, and 
help to pull the wicked out of their sinful ways, and bring 
the teachings of Christ before the people in their vivid, 
lasting way. 


375 


THE WANDERER 


WHAT WOMAN WOULD HAVE 
MADE THE BEST WIFE FOR 
HENRY VIII? 

“*Tis a precious thing, when wives are dead, 

To find such numbers who will serve instead ” 

—Crabbe in “Learned Boy.” 

JULIAN STREET. 

I F I thought I could be of practical assistance to Henry 
VIII in his matrimonial difficulties, I should perhaps at¬ 
tempt an answer to your question; but I understand the 
gentleman to be dead, wherefore I fear that any suggestion 
of mine as to whom he should marry next would be futile. 

PERRITON MAXWELL, Editor of Judge . 

If the alleged “law of opposites” operates with but half 
the effectiveness attributed to it by students of the psy¬ 
chology of matrimony, our blustering old friend Henry 
VIII would have found his ideal mate in the daughter of 
Ptolemy XII—the Cleopatra. 

The lady who so successfully conned Caesar and made a 
boob of Mark Antony, could have handled Henry to the 
point of dining out of her rose-tinted palm. The stretch 
of a few centuries between Cleo’s day and that of Henry 
is a mere detail in the consideration of affinities. Space and 
time have no existence in the calendar of true love. (See 
Marie Corelli.) Assuming the Queen of the Nile and 
English Hal to have been contemporaneous, let us see how 
they would have hit it off in the connubial yoke. 

Henry was a born philanderer but with a weakness for 
the marriage ceremony; he was no hand at loving and riding 
376 


THE WANDERER 


away. The pomp and incense of the altar were more to him 
than fidelity to his vow. On the other hand Cleo thought 
so lightly of the marital bond (whatever it was in her day) 
that she went to Rome and lived with Caesar as his mis¬ 
tress until his assassination. Nominally married to her 
younger brother (for reasons of State) she deftly poisoned 
him. She could have held Henry down to the royal hearth¬ 
stone by a mere wave of the arsenic bottle. His whole 
retinue of wives could not have held him to his marital 
pledge through their weepings and cajoleries as easily as 
Cleo could have done by a wave of her palm-leaf fan. She 
was a husky dusky vamp by all accounts (some historians 
aver that she was pure Negro) and blond Henry would 
have weakened under her spell. 

Hal was an out-door’s man. Cleo spent a lot of time 
in the shade of her riverside bungalow; her chief business 
in life concerned her rouge-pots and lip-sticks. Henry was 
fond of battle and was usually lucky in his wars; Cleo was 
a flivver as a director of armies. Henry was a nervously 
active gink; Cleo the personification of indolence. Henry 
had a violent temper; Cleo would have made his royal 
wrath look like the pouting of a five-year old, had she let 
loose her batteries of invectives. She was all woman and 
her seductive charm was only half conscious; also she had 
a good mind and could have talked politics with Wolseley. 
Henry had a large strain of the cave-man in his makeup 
which would have appealed to the barbaric in Cleo. Lithe 
of body Cleo was a very serpent in physique; Henry was 
robustious though it must be admitted he carried too much 
weight for age. 

The passive, well-bred love-making of his several experi¬ 
mental wives, undoubtedly bored Henry to irritation. Cleo¬ 
patra would have kept him guessing, as the poets say, 
engaged his fancy and fired his beefy ardor. Henry’s sheer 
masculinity would have found its complement in Cleo’s tiger 
nature. Henry making his own laws and religious formulas 

377 


THE WANDERER 

would have found an agreeable excitement in the rapidity 
with which Cleo would have transgressed them. 

It is a vast pity that Fate did not bring these two to¬ 
gether in a common era. They would have been the theme 
of story-weavers for all time as the great lovers—that or 
the biggest, most picturesque matrimonial smash-up in his¬ 
tory. Might-have-beens are always appealing to the imag¬ 
ination and wholly footless. Cleo at Hampton Court would 
have had her oil portraits in the homes of to-day’s Ameri¬ 
can millionaires. As it is there isn’t so much as a carte-de- 
visite of her extant. Would English history have an added 
luster by the presence of Cleopatra in its annals? I’ll 
say it would. 

PAUL GEFROEHLICH 

Henry survived five wives. But they were mediaeval wives. 
No man can survive one modern wife, especially the kind 
of wives they create nowadays. Now, whom should we 
select to be Mrs. Henry, remembering that Hen was a great 
killer of women and took pride in it ? I have it. He should 
be married to the composite woman who writes the Home 
Page, the Women’s Magazine stories, and Advice to the 
Lovelorn. She would kill Henry in three days and we 
shall have peace. 

How is this revenge upon Henry to be effected? First 
she shall write him an article upon “How to Live on $5,000 
a Year.” This type of article has killed, at least to all 
purposes, 30,000,000 American husbands who make some¬ 
where below $1,500 a year. When he is in a comatose state 
from that she shall lecture him on “Buy the Best,” inci¬ 
dentally glorifying the profiteers who charge the highest 
for the worst. 

If he still lives, she must dine with a second lieutenant 
(of aviation) who feeds her at the best hotels on $141 
monthly, just the type in the feature story of the “Homely 
Housewife’s Friend.” Then a comparison of Henry with 

378 


THE WANDERER 


a successful American business man (the one with the keen- 
shaven jaw and clean eye) who directs big enterprises 
when he isn’t gripping the wheel of his high-powered car. 
That will kill Henry. 

JUSTIN WETHERSBY. 

Catherine De Medici no doubt would have been a match 
for him. 

Their taste were similar; their characters were much the 
same. Only in the methods of carrying out their personal 
desires did they differ. They could have explained their 
alliance in the words of the modern young man who used 
psychology in his selection of a wife. He said: “We are 
enough alike so we’ll always understand each other. And 
we are sufficiently different that we’ll never bore each 
other.” 

Henry liked the name Catherine, for he married three 
women of that name. And Catherine liked the name Henry, 
for she gave it to one of her sons. And Henry insisted that 
his wives be fat. Catherine, I understand, would have met 
his requirements there to an extent, at least. 

Both hated “unbelievers.” Henry destroyed the heretics. 
Catherine instigated St. Bartholomew’s Day. Henry was 
an expert on matters pertaining to decapitation. Catherine 
was just as much an expert in the use of deadly and in¬ 
sidious drugs. Where Henry ordered the ax, Catherine 
used poison. If Henry had prescribed a dose of beheading 
for Catherine, she would have had her perfumier concoct a 
death designing potion to be taken with his near beer. 

Each would have held the other in mutual respect. Per¬ 
haps they would have united forces for the common benefit. 
At any rate with the regard each would have given the 
other, there would have been the calm and cordial rela¬ 
tionship necessary for the happiness of any domestic 
establishment. 


379 


THE WANDERER 


WERE ADAM AND EVE EVER 
MARRIED? 

“And Adam called his wife's name Eve” 

Genesis III-20. 

IRVIN S. COBB. 

I HOPE so. There’s been too much talk about that 
couple already. 

JAMES F. MORTON, JR. 

I cannot answer a question based on the untenable as¬ 
sumption that Adam and Eve were ever historical person¬ 
ages. Whether the Eden story is an inspired allegory or 
the tradition of a semi-civilized race, may be open to ques¬ 
tion, but that it is not a simple statement of fact remains 
beyond all question. 

Few facts in science are so thoroughly demonstrated as 
that of the antiquity of the human race, antedating the 
period of the mythical Adam and Eve certainly by tens of 
thousands of years, and probably tens of some hundreds of 
thousands. 

In the Bible narrative, the “marriage” of the legendary 
couple seems to have been of the “common law” variety 
and unaccompanied by any conventional ceremony. Since 
the lady of the rib is represented as expressly created as 
helper to the gentleman, with specific instructions from the 
supreme authority to “be fruitful and multiply and replenish 
the earth,” such of the alleged descendants of the pair as 
chose to credit the veracity of the account need not at this 
late date have any qualms concerning the legality of the 
reported union. 


380 


THE WANDERER 


FRANCES URE. 

Adam and Eve were married in a legal and divine way- 
even more so than the marriage of to-day. All the arrange¬ 
ments were made by God and the relationship between 
Adam and Eve was more intimate than that of ordinary 
husband and wife, for when God created Adam, Eve was 
within him, Gen. 1127. 

God’s ideal was manifested in them and if this ideal 
were closely followed to-day it would cause every marriage 
to be ordered not according to worldly ideals but “in the 
Lord,” and if this was the case there would be fewer family 
difficulties and divorces. 

W. E. WALSH. 

This is a subject I have always wanted to discuss, for 
the reason that Adam was an ancestor on my wife’s side, 
and naturally I know more about him than I do about my 
own forbears. 

I am reluctantly compelled to answer this question in the 
affirmative. 

The Bible tells us they were wed at twilight under a new 
moon. The distances of old Mespot were blue and filled 
with moving shadows. Probably an eohippus stopped to 
gaze at the happy pair as he trotted toward his salt lick, 
and a few mammoths probably crashed about eating the 
tops off the cabbage palms. Birds were singing their mating 
songs high in the cedar and fig trees, and winds sighed in 
the grass, and the resurrection of April was in the air. 

Everything favored married life in those days. There 
were no mother-in-laws, no eternal triangles, no beer, no 
work, no sincere lady friends to tell how stupid she was to 
marry a wage slave and press fig leaves for him the rest 
of her life. No orchestra to play Ja Da, no old shoes, no 
marriage license, no preacher, no pay, no wedding guests to 

381 


THE WANDERER 


cordially press upon the unsuspecting young couple dis¬ 
carded Christmas gifts as wedding presents. No diamond 
engagement rings, no wedding trips via the Waldorf and 
Traymore and New Willard and back to the beans again. 
They took their wedding trip around the garden clinging 
to the back of a mammoth, and an imitation sea voyage on. 
the spinal column of a camel, which Adam assured her was 
as good as the real thing and much cheaper. 

Eve made one mistake. She permitted Adam to encircle 
her finger with a peach stone wedding ring which he had 
cunningly fashioned with his own dear hands, and to destroy 
her individuality by fastening his name on the back of hers, 
so that she became known to the world as Mrs. Eve Adam. 
But he was wise enough to keep his maiden name and wear 
no wedding ring, and in later life doubtless deceived many 
lady street car conductors and manicurists into thinking 
him a confirmed bachelor. Little did Eve then realize that 
her thoughtless act was the beginning of a custom which has 
put woman into bondage to the end of time. That is why 
the feminists ignore the existence of Eve, although they 
must know that if Eve, Adam, and applejack had never 
met, we would have had no “Fatty” Arbuckle, Flora Finch 
or “Jack” Dempsey. 

After they were married the Bible relates they blushed 
with shame. However, I prefer to believe they blushed 
with happiness in their newly found love, and that the man 
who wrote up their wedding was a merchant tailor who was 
boosting his own game after the well-known manner of the 
boorj-wa. Also, some will contend that there was a 
preacher, that he wore a frock coat and stiff collar and that 
a wedding march was played and that the bridegroom lost 
the ring. I leave those serious subjects for useful and ex¬ 
tended discussion. 


THE WANDERER 


RUPERT HUGHES. 

I do not believe Adam and Eve ever existed, and neither 
does anybody else who takes historical or any other evi¬ 
dence seriously. 

Whether the mythological Adam and Eve were married 
or not depends altogether on the definition of “marriage.” 
Their trip to the license bureau or to a clergyman is not 
mentioned, and there was apparently no ceremonial alliance. 
But scientists speak of bird and animal “marriages,” and 
in that sense they were married. Their honeymoon was as 
unhappy as their first two children. 


SHOULD EUGENE DEBS BE FREED 
FROM PRISON? 

In 1856 the Republican party rallying cry was: (t Free 
soil , free men , free speech , Fremontl” 

OSWALD GARRISON VILLARD, Editor of The Nation. 

I AM emphatically of the opinion that Eugene Debs should 
be freed from imprisonment. I have never seen him, and 
I have never been a Socialist, but I think that the United 
States Government did itself a colossal injury when it 
imprisoned such a man. Not being a lawyer, I am not com¬ 
petent to judge whether the evidence technically justified 
the action or not. As a private citizen I could only marvel 
how any one could believe for a moment that such expres¬ 
sion of stock Socialist opinion would hinder recruiting. 
What pains me above all else is that my beloved country is 
going on in the same stupid way to imprison people for their 
opinions which the European nations have been following, 
for the last half century in particular. Bismarck, in 1879, 

383 


THE WANDERER 

after attempts on the life of the old Kaiser Wilhelm, under¬ 
took to blot out Socialism by the most ferocious anti- 
Socialistic laws, with the result that before the war came on 
instead of there being 150,000 German Socialists there were 
five millions. His laws were repealed years ago and are 
a monument to the stupidity of repression by force. Our 
country is headed exactly the same way. It has learned 
nothing by the experience abroad. The only way to defeat 
Socialism is to defeat its arguments, and to show that it 
does not hold out a hope for a better world. If we cannot 
do this, Socialism will come, even if the United States 
should lock up every Socialist to-morrow. 

By the way, I suppose your readers are aware that the 
war to extend democracy has already resulted in the estab¬ 
lishment of some (27) straight-out Socialist Republics and 
two Communist Republics in Europe; it has been the 
greatest thing that ever happened—for Socialism. Mean¬ 
while, the effect of the conviction of Debs upon me has 
been to make me want to vote for him for President 
as a protest. 

REV. STANLEY A. HUNTER. 

In reply to your question as to whether I think that 
Eugene V. Debs should be released from the penitentiary, 
I would say, yes, as I have already said so from my pulpit. 
I believe the selective draft law of the Government was 
wise and just. I believe that during the war the Government 
has the right of restraining any and all who oppose the 
successful prosecution of the war. But the war has now 
been won. All the men and munitions needed by our 
Government were available. We set ourselves to build up 
a great army and navy, and the task was done. Steel was 
produced in a great quantity, because the Government could 
commandeer coal and ore where necessary. Now, con¬ 
science is another sort of commodity. The Government 

384 


THE WANDERER 


must handle it carefully. Last June seven Russellites were 
given prison sentences for 20 years for their share in liter¬ 
ature which obstructed the draft. Their sentences have 
lately been annulled by the United States Circuit Court. 
The President has commuted the sentences of some 50 
victims of the espionage law, and this action shows that 
peace conditions demand different treatment than war con¬ 
ditions. The time has come for general amnesty for those 
who are now behind prison bars because of conscience, not 
cowardice. Mr. Debs is one of the many. Even antiquated 
autocracies have hesitated in imposing such heavy sentences 
with so many years’ imprisonment. 

JOSEPH E. BABB. 

Why not! What is the advantage to the State in its 
insistence that the full penalty be carried out? The war is 
over and victorious States generally show magnanimity to 
all political prisoners and declare general amnesty. In the 
trial of Eugene V. Debs, he was not indicted for treason, 
but for giving comfort to the enemy. It is difficult to see 
how he could give aid to the enemy. Article 3, section 3-1 
of the Constitution defines treason as adherence to the 
enemy, giving them aid and comfort. Eugene Debs cer¬ 
tainly showed no adherence to the enemy, and conse¬ 
quently could not be accused of giving them aid and com¬ 
fort. It follows that giving aid and comfort is consequent 
upon his adherence to the enemy. 

To carry out the full sentence imposed upon Eugene Debs 
is to classify him as a criminal, and no one who knows the 
man, knows of his nobility of character, would say that he 
possesses criminal traits. 

The State is not infallible, and if the State would emulate 
the loftiness, the nobility of reason of the man, Eugene 
Debs, we would have less political dissension and make for 
the stability of a more pure and moral State. 

385 


THE WANDERER 


WILLIAM E. SCHOYER. 

Eugene Debs was convicted of obstructing recruiting in 
violation of the provisions of the espionage act, his indict¬ 
ment and conviction following a speech in which he de¬ 
nounced the war. No proof was made of actual obstruction, 
but the jury was permitted to find that such obstruction 
was the natural and probable result of his speech, and that 
he had a specific intent to obstruct recruiting. The Supreme 
Court in affirming his conviction holds that Congress may 
pass laws which though not directly curtailing free speech 
have that very practical effect. Debs was technically guilty 
of obstructing recruiting—he was really guilty of denounc¬ 
ing the policy of the Government. 

Debs should be released, because the espionage act was 
an unwise law. It caught no German spies, but did catch 
many radicals and pacifists. It is contrary to the spirit of 
our American institutions—to our long tradition of right 
of free criticism of Government measures. It has certainly 
been effective in suppressing minority opinion and thought 
expedient from the viewpoint of the majority. But in the 
long run minority opinion is essential to growth and prog¬ 
ress, and the espionage act, which it is now sought to 
broaden and extend into peace times, makes a precedent 
which is a constant danger to our democracy. 

Debs should be released, because conceding the need 
for such an act in wartime, the war is over and there is no 
need for keeping Debs and other political prisoners in jail. 
The sincerity and honesty of Debs are admitted. Surely no 
good end is served in holding in jail a man who, however 
mistakenly, had the courage to publicly express his convic¬ 
tions. Italy and the Central Empires released their political 
prisoners after the signing of the armistice. Democratic 
America should not lag too far behind empires and king¬ 
doms in setting free political prisoners. 


386 


THE WANDERER 
GEORGE J. SHAFFER. 

Just recently we saw the boys of the returning Three 
Hundred and Twentieth Regiment parading down Fifth 
avenue, and lifted our hats as the memorial flag passed 
b y> those who did not come back.” Then we reviewed 
tne victorious colored troops parading down the same way. 
And with the strains of the music which led these return¬ 
ing warriors who went out “to make the world safe for 
democracy ’ (and keeping those in mind who did not re¬ 
turn), still ringing in my ears, I am asked, “Should Eugene 
V. Debs Be Free?” 

To me there can be no answer but “Yes” to this question, 
else these have fought and died in vain. 


SHOULD WE TAKE FREUD TOO 
SERIOUSLY? 

“The sublime and the ridiculous are so often so nearly 
related that it is difficult to class them separately . One 
step above the sublime makes the ridiculous , and one 
step above the ridiculous makes the sublime again ” 

—Thomas Paine in “The Age of Reason.” 

KNIGHT DUNLAP, Professor of Experimental Psychol- 
• °&y> Johns Hopkins University. 

/^\F course nothing should be /taken too seriously, and 
there is danger at present that Freud and his disciples 
may be thus taken. The psychoanalytic system of Freud is 
based on a psychology now out of date and not in accord¬ 
ance with our knowledge of mind and the nervous system. 
While sex is an enormously important factor in mental life, 
our sex ideas do not function in the way Freud naively sup¬ 
poses. 


387 


THE WANDERER 


Psychoanalysis at present makes a wide appeal to per¬ 
sons whose knowledge of scientific psychology is slight; an 
appeal due in part to the salacious nature of the topics dis¬ 
cussed and to the fact that “cures” are produced by the 
psychoanalytic technique. You must remember, however, 
that Christian Science and a number of other techniques 
produce equally well-grounded cures of the same sort of 
neurotic cases, that the confessional of the church involves 
somewhat the same principles in a less dangerous way. The 
interpretation of dreams, which is a striking point in the 
Freudian system, is in most cases artificial; a more compre¬ 
hensive interpretation is always possible on the established 
principles of psychology. 

DR. W. A. WILLIAMS. 

To be really up to date one “must” read Freud, think 
Freud, dream Freud, and be an all around Freudian. The 
ardent Freudians I have met belong in a class entirely by 
themselves, for Freud seems to have the faculty, after he 
has once got a hold on a person, of entirely absorbing them. 
For this reason I believe that we cannot but take Freud very, 
very seriously because the changes his chain of ethics makes 
on some people are very disastrous. 

Of course I do not deny but that he has been of a great 
service to ethics, but the ardent Freudians are not as a rule 
interested in ethics but in sex. Freud himself is without 
question a man of genius and I imagine much saner than 
most of his followers. Sometimes one has a faint suspicion 
that he is making a little fun of the world. In a way Freud 
has been epoch-making^, and presented something entirely 
new to the psychology of the world, but why such a multi¬ 
tude has gone mad about his theories can hardly be under¬ 
stood. 

I think, taking him all in all, that he is a little dangerous, 
and his books should not be read by those who are too im- 

388 


THE WANDERER 


pressionable, for the unintelligent reader is apt to take his 
conception of sex in a too concrete manner, when Freud’s 
meaning of sex is the big broad meaning, not merely man 
and woman but every thing in the universe. My summing 
up of Freud will be—read him “with a grain of salt,” and 
that he does not deserve the ardent praise nor yet the laugh¬ 
ing damnation that has been thrust upon him. 

GEORGE KEPPEL THOMAS. 

Knowing that Freud is a scientist and that he does not 
write with levity I presume this question means, should we 
really believe him. Not many centuries ago the earth was 
discovered to be round and the planets to revolve around the 
sun. Galileo, who had the courage to assert this, was taken 
so seriously that the good people decided the world would 
go to perdition if he was not imprisoned and his eyes put 
out. For this science was in direct opposition to the dog¬ 
matic myths of the day. 

A few years ago it was generally believed that a person 
feels, loves, hates, etc., with his heart, and that if he has hys¬ 
teria or insanity he is possessed by a devil. Some still be¬ 
lieve this. Freud has endeavored to show the circulation 
and repression of the mental force. His principles are quite 
opposed to the old ideas of soul, will, mind, or feeling. The 
general public and the learned pedants would belie their type 
if they should not take him seriously and hang him. 

Few men ever discovered any great truths or did any¬ 
thing real noble for mankind who were not hanged, burned, 
crucified, starved, or ridiculed to death. Some of Freud’s 
conclusions may be far-fetched but his fundamentals are 
on bed rock. 

DR. JOSEPH FOLSOM. 

Of course, we should never take anything too seriously. 
But on the whole we have not given enough attention to 

389 


THE WANDERER 

what Freud has to say. A great many have been so shocked 
in their tender feelings by Freud’s over-emphasis upon the 
sex motive that they have failed to look at the fundamental 
principles of his theory and give them due consideration. 

The lesson is, first, that we should frankly face and un¬ 
derstand our “baser” instincts and wishes, and instead of 
blindly repressing them, trying to believe they do not exist, 
rather to find some rational and healthy substitute object or 
purpose—to analyze and discriminate—to satisfy those parts 
that can be satisfied without harm to self or society, and to 
find intelligently a substitute for the others. Instead of try¬ 
ing to repress anger we should turn it against the evil and 
suffering in the world; sex instinct instead of being smoth¬ 
ered as wholly base and evil can, according to Freud, be 
“sublimated” into artistic or creative activity, insofar as it 
cannot be satisfied directly in legitimate ways. 

Second, we learn better to understand human nature; we 
can know what to expect, instead of being so surprised, 
when we see sudden changes from hatred to love, violent 
outbursts following repression; and when we observe the 
peculiar fads, fancies, nervous mannerisms, likes and dis¬ 
likes of our friends, we can realize that these are various 
compromises and substitutes trying to solve inner mental 
conflicts, instead of merely looking upon them as so much 
meaningless peculiarity. In other words, we become more 
tolerant and sympathetic toward the peculiar in human na¬ 
ture. Finally, we learn that the repression of desire is a 
necessary evil, not an end worthy for its own sake as the 
older moral philosophy tried to teach us. Hence the real 
ethical problem of life is to find intelligent solutions to the 
conflict which will both satisfy our egoistic desires and our 
social conscience as well—that is, to do a maximum of so¬ 
cial good with a minimum of self-denial. He who is un¬ 
willing to deny self when necessary to the social good is a 
selfish and unworthy citizen, but he who values self-denial 
390 


THE WANDERER 


for its own sake and objects to studying out whether it is 
really necessary or not is a fool. 

JOHN R. COVERT. 

Should we take Freud too seriously ? Yes and no. It is 
mentally impossible (accent on the mental) for the ordinary 
man to take Freud too seriously. It is only the expert who 
goes to extremes on the subject. The ordinary man when 
dealing with Freudian theories never gets to the point where 
he can grant an unbiased and uncensored consideration of 
the subject. He is so full of inhibitions on all sex problems 
and is so used to serving himself with self-censored ideas 
that when a truth is put up uncensored he naturally hates it. 

I think no one accepts Freudian ideas and theories with¬ 
out a struggle. They hit too near home, too near where we 
live. Most people believe Freud attaches too much impor¬ 
tance to sex, gives it too prominent a place in the scheme of 
life, and tends to increase its importance, but the idea is ex¬ 
actly the opposite, and in the end will help people to solve 
their big problems in life through understanding. Most 
people have solved the food problem—they don’t eat too 
much. The Freudians are attempting to help solve the next 
great problem. 


391 


THE WANDERER 


ARE CAPITAL AND LABOR 
PARTNERS? 

“Property is the product of wealth. It must be hewed 
out of the forest, plowed out of the field, blasted out of 
the mine, pounded out of the anvil, wrought out in the 
factory and furnace. Labor is at the bottom of it all; 
and the nation in which labor is the best cherished and 
cared for, must be the richest and most prosperous. 
Capital and labor are mutual allies.” 

JAMES H. MAURER, President, Pennsylvania Federation 
of Labor. 

T HIS question can be truthfully answered with one 
word, “Yes.” While it is true that labor could not 
exist without capital, as that term is understood to-day, it is 
equally true that capital could accomplish nothing without 
labor. Labor has no fight with capital because capital is a 
creature of labor, it represents the surplus wealth created by 
labor in the past. During my speech recently, in Reading, 
Pa., this question was asked: “How would I establish in¬ 
dustry without capital?” 

No sane person proposes ignoring the importance, or need, 
of capital in industry. I repeat, “Labor has no fight with 
capital as such,” but we do have a fight with capitalists, 
those who are in control of capital. 

We contend that capital represents nothing more than the 
surplus wealth created by labor, and the inherent values 
supplied by nature and this accumulated wealth, which rep¬ 
resents largely the unpaid wages of the past, is now in con¬ 
trol of a few capitalists who abuse their stewardship by 
greed and blind stupidity. 

This accumulated capital, labor now demands, must be 
democratized and directed into channels that will lead to 
392 


THE WANDERER 


the promotion of a more just social order and increased hap¬ 
piness to all mankind. 

H. M. KALLEN. 

Capital and labor are not partners. Capital and labor are 
mutually inter-dependent. But the dependence is at present 
based on relationships that tend to make the position of the 
laborer that of an involuntary servant, and the position of 
the capitalist that of a master. 

Capital and labor could, however, be partners. To be 
partners, they would need to enter into arrangements meet¬ 
ing the legal qualifications of partnership contract. Legally 
and morally, a partnership exists when the contracting par¬ 
ties share in the responsibilities, risks, and gains of the enter¬ 
prise they undertake together. 

Capital and labor would be partners if the risk of life and 
limb which labor always makes in industry could be equal¬ 
ized by the risk of property which capital makes; if the 
control of industry by capital could be equalized by means 
of proportionate control by labor, and if the gains of indus¬ 
try could be equitably divided. Until this is done, all talk 
of partnership between labor and capital is hypocrisy. 

HARRY W. LAIDLER, Ph. D., Editor, The Socialist Re¬ 
view; Secretary, Intercollegiate Socialist Society. 

I do not believe capital and labor, as these terms are popu¬ 
larly understood, can permanently remain partners. It is 
true that at certain points the interests of individual workers 
and individual capitalists are similar. On the other hand 
there is a fundamental antagonism between the economic 
interests of the capitalist class and those of the class of in¬ 
tellectual and manual workers. 

It is to the interest of the capitalist class to obtain, through 
profit and interest, as large a proportion of the product of 
industry as possible. It is to the interest of the workers 
393 


THE WANDERER 

by hand and brain to obtain through increased wages and 
salaries as large an amount of the social product as possible. 
This difference in economic interest has given rise to the 
raging class struggle between “labor and capital over the 
division of the products of industry. 

With the development of the modern corporation the cap¬ 
italist as such has become more and more separated from 
any necessary activity in industry. Thousands of capitalists 
have become merely inactive stockholders or bondholders, 
whose only function in industry is that of saving, investing 
—largely at the suggestion of supposed market experts— 
and clipping coupons. They may know nothing of the 
workings of industry, but, because of their ownership, and 
not because of their ability, their income is assured from 
year to year. 

Under the system of private ownership, the intellectual 
and manual worker must, of necessity, continue to support 
these inactive stockholders. Should industry be transferred 
from private ownership to social or public ownership, this 
necessity ceases to exist. The intellectual and manual 
workers, through a democratically controlled government, 
will own their own capital (machinery, etc.), hire their own 
statisticians to give expert advice regarding future invest¬ 
ments and do their own investing. Under these circum¬ 
stances the individual capitalist will be eliminated, the work¬ 
ers will no longer be compelled to support a class of stock¬ 
holders and bondholders in comparative idleness, and the en¬ 
tire social product will be shared by a nation of producers. 

WILLIAM E. SCHOYER. 

By the term partnership we mean two or more persons 
working together more or less amicably to produce certain 
results. The relationship has certain main legal incidents. 
That is, partners share in profits and contribute toward 
losses and have equal voice in the management and conduct 
394 


THE -WANDERER 


of the enterprise. Can capital and labor be considered in 
any sense partners? 

Labor does not contribute toward losses, save in case of 
failure of the enterprise; does not share in the profits, save 
in a few negligible cases, and generally has no rights at all in 
the management and conduct of the business. And the re¬ 
sort to strikes by the one side and injunctions by the other 
hardly connotes that amicable relationship which we assume 
exists and which generally does exist between partners in 
the business world. 

The term partnership as applied to capital and labor is 
used apparently more in the vague hope that pleasing words 
will help a difficult situation than for stating facts. In 
much the same way for example as the 14 points are said by 
some eminent personages to be included in the treaty of 
Versailles. 

In one sense only are they partners—in that they are neces¬ 
sary to each other and work together for a common object. 
But of course on that basis the American slave or the Rus¬ 
sian serf might have been called partner of the power that 
oppressed him. And even if capital and labor could form a 
partnership in any legal sense there would be no partnership 
because of the entirely different character of their interests, 
the one representing money and goods controlled by the com¬ 
paratively few, the other the man power of many. It may 
be that in the future there will be changes in our social sys¬ 
tem whereby the present control of capital will cease and 
labor and capital may work together harmoniously. But 
even if such a change should ever come, it may be doubted 
whether their supposed relationship would be properly de¬ 
scribed as a partnership. 

CARL D. SMITH. 

There are three factors in production. Land, labor and 
capital, and their relative importance is in the order named. 
395 


THE WANDERER 


Land includes all natural opportunities. Labor includes 
every exertion expended in the production of wealth. 
Wealth, it may be stated, is the product of labor applied to 
land. The earth and its fulness is land, yet there was no 
wealth until “Adam,” the first laborer, had begun to pluck 
apples, or in some other manner apply his energy to gather¬ 
ing, adapting, or preparing the good things all about him 
to meet his immediate and future wants and desires. 

There was then no capital, nor the need of it, until primi¬ 
tive conditions changed. Later, “Adam, Jr.,” took from 
the store of grain, fruit or seeds gathered (wealth) and em¬ 
ployed them in producing more wealth, in assisting nature. 
And likewise the crooked stick, cut from the forest (also 
wealth) was converted into a plow or a. hoe. Labor was as¬ 
sisted by this new element, capital. Thus, we see that capi¬ 
tal is simply the assistant of labor. This relation, in fact, 
remains the same to-day. 

By a constantly increasing quantity of capital, and espe¬ 
cially its “ingenuity of forms,” the product of labor was 
greatly increased—and in consequence the legitimate return 
to labor (wages, i. e., its share of the product) was (like 
Little Jeff, I mean “was”) enhanced in proportion. The 
share of the product accruing to land is rent; that to capital 
is interest. Rent plus wages plus interest equals product. 
The pathos, or the dolorous humor, of the situation is that 
labor and capital, being so busily engaged in unholy recrim¬ 
inations, do not take time to realize that the real reason their 
respective shares are so small (except in the eyes of the 
other) is that land is absorbing a constantly larger and ever 
increasing share in rent. To illustrate: Labor and capital 
invent and perfect the cotton gin, the reaper and binder, the 
modem tractor. What happens? The product is mightily 
increased, but land values jump and rent soars, while wages 
and interest retnain, like the invalid lady, “about the same, 
thank you.” 

I do not hold with some that “the ways of God are past 

396 


THE WANDERER 


finding out/’ but rather that His ways are simple and easily 
comprehended; that true economic laws are natural laws 
which must be followed if God's plan for an orderly creation 
is to be attained. 


WHAT WOULD YOU LIKE TO 
HAVE FOR CHRISTMAS? 

“’Twas the night before Christmas , and all through the 
house , 

Not a creature was stirring , not even a mouse. 

The stockings were hung by the chimney with care , 

In hopes that St. Nicholas soon would be there.” 

PRESIDENT WILSON, by HERMANN GROTE. 

T HE prophet of old asked: “What doth it profit a man 
to gain the whole world and lose his own soul?” 
Every great man must, at some time in his career, stop, 
ponder that and ask himself the question. 

As President and to reflect over the affairs of the last few 
years, and to think of how I had entered the war on the 
side of the Allies; how they approved by declaration of 
principles for the permanent establishment of which we 
were entering upon the war; how we fought side by side 
with them to establish these principles, and how we emerged 
victorious and vindicated them; how, with the American 
delegates, I had triumphantly entered Paris to write into 
the pea^e treaty these fundamental principles which alone 
could avoid future wars. Behold! I found a group of dip¬ 
lomats—diplomats of the Machiavellian type—courteous, 
suave, flattering, but sinister—and the shock nearly broke 
my heart. I have never recovered. 

I could stand France, Italy and Japan, but when England 
refused to accept my league of nations, like Caesar, I felt 

397 


THE WANDERER 

like exclaiming: “Et tu, Britannia!” This quite vanquished 
me. Like the witches in Macbeth, they “kept their word of 
promise to my ears, but broke them to my hopes. They 
still subscribed to my fourteen points, but only as modified 
by the secret treaties. These, like the weasel words of a 
political platform, cut out the heart of the fourteen points. 

I cannot but think of the words of Cardinal Wolsey; I 
hear them ringing in my ears, so sadly true: “This is the 
state of man. To-day he puts forth the tender leaves of 
hope, to-morrow blossoms and bears his blushing honors 
thick upon him. The third day comes a frost—a killing 
frost, and when he thinks, good easy man, full surely his 
greatness is a-ripening, nips his root and then he falls, he 
falls—as I do.” 

In my present state, what could I ask as an acceptable 
Christmas gift? What could a man in my position and 
condition wish at this season? Gifts of ivory and gold? 
I had my surfeit of them. Things of personal comfort and 
adornment ? I have been deluged with them, and the White 
House is crowded with gifts. I have everything in the 
world—riches endless, except the two most important and 
all-beneficial things of life—peace of mind and health of 
body. To me, therefore, the most acceptable gifts of the 
season would be, health and happiness, of both of which I 
have been robbed. To return them to me would be the most 
welcome and charitable act of Santa Claus. 

HIS MAJESTY, KING GEORGE OF ENGLAND, by 
JAMES J. MARSHALL. 

God rest you, merry gentlemen, I should hardly know 
what to ask for Christmas, you know. Everything is jolly 
well fit, I might say. To be sure, there is some murmuring 
from the peasantry, but I should say that Lloyd George will 
attend to that without disturbing me, you know. The 
deuced coal miners and the railroad workers are stirring 
things a bit, but I really can’t see what they want with 
398 


THE WANDERER 


Covent Garden and Drury Lane open every night and the 
fox-hunting so jolly this winter. 

I have been hearing that some of my soldiers in Russia 
are raising a bally disturbance with the cold and all that. 
But I have a splendid confidence in loyalty to my Majesty, 
and the beef of old England can be depended on. 

The Prince of Wales is in dashing good form. Little 
feeble, perhaps, but he won’t need his head with old Lloyd 
George in charge. The Queen might have a little better 
temper, but queens, you know, old top. 

You’re jolly right, old fellow, I might ask St. Nicholas 
for a little more peace in Ireland. The blooming “Paddies” 
are making a dickens of a row with their wanting peace. 
We give them plenty, I am sure. They can send their fel¬ 
lows to Parliament, plenty of peace there, they tell me. No 
one ever is anything but peaceful in Parliament. 

Thanks, old top, I’ll see you at Brighton. 

THE KAISER, by K. W. MAXWELL. 

I am the most unfortunate man on earth this day, the 
most tragic figure in the world, and the most sinister to 
many men. I might have brought peace on earth, and in¬ 
stead I brought a sword. My greatest wish for Christmas 
is that the world may forgive, and forget, and not visit the 
sins of the rulers on the people .unto the fourth generation. 
Such a Christmas gift would be welcome to my tormented 
soul. 

LADY ASTOR, by FLORENCE OLIVER. 

What do I want for Christmas, dear Santa Claus? That 
is not easy to answer, because things have recently been 
coming my way, and I do not want to make the mistake 
of the fisherman’s wife in the old fairy-tale, who wished for 
the control of the sun and the moon, and so was reduced 
to her original state of poverty. However, you might drop 
into the toe of my silken hosiery one large and juicy plum 

399 


THE WANDERER 


in the shape of the Premiership of England. You see, these 
Englishmen are no doubt a worthy and honest race, but 
somewhat lacking in pep, and an American woman at the 
helm of the ship of state might liven things up a bit. 

As a beginning, I’d shut off the supply of booze, and thus 
make England a right little, but no longer a tight little, 
island. Then I would turn my attention to the down-trod¬ 
den sex, particularly as applied to that stick no thicker than 
friend husband’s thumb, with which the law permits him 
to chastise his wife. Of course, I admit that marriage is a 
partnership, but men should be the silent partner. While 
lacking the 14 points, the marriage covenant might be im¬ 
proved by a few amendments, or at least some mental reser¬ 
vations so far as the words, “honor and obey,” are con¬ 
cerned. 

But that is enough to begin with. Of course, my pro¬ 
gram will lengthen as I grow familiar with my new duties. 

LEON TROTZKY, by JOHN T. HOYLE. 

For Christmas—um, let me see. I don’t want much. I 
wish, first of all, that I were just plain “Sam” Bronstein 
again and were back on my job in little old New York, in¬ 
stead of being the main gazaboo among these wild-eyed, be- 
whiskered tovarishi who are to make the world over. 

When it comes to freedom this frigid zone has more of it 
lying around in one minute than United States has in a dog’s 
age, but then the United States is a hanged sight safer place 
to hang up your hat. This is my first wish, Santa, but it 
is my most fervent one. Gee! but I’d bust out laughing 
right in meeting if I had a slice of turk, and cranberries, 
and stuffin’ an’ everythin’. But, I guess, this is too much 
of a wish, Santy, so I’ll give you something easier. 

I wish this Cabinet of mine were more docile and obedi¬ 
ent—it cuts up more didoes than the United States Senate. 
Even at that I’m glad I’m not in Woody’s shoes. 

400 


THE WANDERER 


# I wish Uncle Sam wasn’t so doggone brash about unload¬ 
ing his troubles on me. My jails are already bulging, my 
hangman is working overtime, and what I’m going to do 
with all these I. W. W. relatives beats me. I hope the 
blooming Buford hits a rock or something. 

I wish Kolchak would choke. 

I wish the steel workers and the coal miners hadn’t gone 
back to work—misery loves company. 

I wish these ministers of mine weren’t so deucedly high¬ 
brow and could appreciate that a fellow can’t live on philos¬ 
ophy and free love these days. Petrograd is no Garden of 
Eden, this Christmas, b’lieve me. 

I wish the Sinn Feiners were better shots. 

I wish the Allies would rally around and help me clean 
up the Bourgeoisie. 

Oh, well, ho—hum, what’s the use? I wish The Wan¬ 
derer hadn’t asked me. 

WILLIAM JENNINGS BRYAN, by H. L. GILES. 

A friend with nerve enough to nominate me for the Presi¬ 
dency in 1920. 

And oh, Santa, if you don’t mind, please bring me a new 
campaign on which to use my eloquence. I’m at a loss for 
a cause. My dear public is drifting farther and farther 
away. ’Tis long since it has felt the sway of my golden 
words on a subject that interested me. Since all have been 
compelled to drink the juice of the grapes unfermented, I 
am like the missionary whose heathen has been converted. I 
am out of a job. 

A cross of gold would sell for many beautiful coins in 
these days of high prices. Bring me one and I’ll hang a 
crown of thorny holly in the window for you. 

Dear Santa, also, please don’t consider me old-fashioned, 
but I’d like a whole sock-full of “free silver.” Dear to my 
heart are the memories of my early mistakes, and dear to 
my pocketbook were my past campaigns. 

401 


THE WANDERER 


GABRIELLE D’ANNUNZIO, by EUGENE LeMOYNE 
CONNOLLY. 

In my ample sock, dear Santa, leave unto me the grassy 
plains of Montiel, and their 40 windmills, that I may vali¬ 
antly slay them with my trusty lance. Bring unto me the 
faithful squire, Sancho Panza, for my royal lieutenant. Give 
me Rozinante to carry me to battle. Lend me fair Dul- 
cmea to fight for me, and the wooden horse of Troy for my 
flights over Fiume and the Dalmatian crown lands. 

Let me have the divining crystal that I may see again the 
fighting legions, who drink the pleasant streams of the fa¬ 
mous Xanthus; the mountaineers who till the Marsilian 
fields; those that sift the pure gold of Arabia Felix; those 
that inhabit the renowned and delightful banks of the Ther- 
modon; those who drain the auriferous Pactolus for its 
precious sands; those who bathe their limbs in the rich 
flood of the glittering Tagus; those who wanton in the lazy 
current of Pisverga. Oh, Santa, fill my holeful sox, both 
of them, with the shining helmet of Mambrino, and the flux 
wine—skins of Micomiconas Brobdignagian foes, in these 
peaceless days, nobody knows how dry I am. 

GENERAL FOCH, by HOWARD WILSON. 

What do I want for ze Noel? Eh, bien, I will tell you! 
Let me march on to Berlin, and I will be satisfait. I am a 
soldier, I love ze sound of ze big cannon. So just give me 
a little excuse, and we will march. But you must hurry up 
ze American Senate, so that we will have some one to back 
us up. 

We are ze invincible Nation, but we like to let L’Oncle 
Sam pay ze bill. He has beaucoup d’argent, and he like to 
pay because we sent Lafayette over to fight Steuben. Eh, 
bien, give us a little excuse to march and fight, and lend us 
a billion or two, so we can buy de’s pantalons rouges pour 
nos soldats, and, sacre bleu, we will finish up ze Boches! 

402 


THE WANDERER 


Aussi, I wish you would send us pour Noel 100,000 teach¬ 
ers of French from ze Berlitz school to teach ze language 
to ze people of Strassbourg'. Ils sont frangais, we have told 
them so, but as they do not understand ze language they do 
not know it yet. Cela suffira, but above all, do not forget 
ze little excuse, for I want some more gloire and some more 
revanche. Vive le son du canon! 


LINES TO GENEVIEVE 

“Who is sweet Genevieve?” The Wanderer does not 
know . But perhaps she is just a name for that fair ideal 
of a maiden that each of us holds sacred in our hearts . 

RICHARD LE GALLIENNE. 


T ELL me who is Genevieve, 

Tell me who is she, 

That I should write the lines you crave, 
Mary, for thee. 

Tell me who is Genevieve— 

And how do you pronounce her? 

To rhyme, as thus, with Mother Eve, 

Or like a foreign “Mounseer ?” 

Coleridge it was, as I believe. 

Who wrote of his own—Jenny-veeve; 
But, should I write for her a stave. 

I’d rather call her—Genevieve. 


EDWARD H. FLOOD, Captain, U. S. A. 

Although your name is quite productive 
Of thoughts alluring and seductive; 

And rhymes with words that are adapted 
To moods of those to Cupid captive; 

403 


THE WANDERER 


Promiscuous laud of all Eve's daughters 
Belongs alone to bards and authors. 

For me, who cannot plead profession, 

This public verse might mean secession 
By one whose name rings just as sweetly— 

Whose image I can view concretely. 

I rest content in this confession 
In praising her by indirection. 

MARK GALPIN. 

Surely that were no great task for a poet to achieve; 

Since new freedom lets us weave 

Poetic lines so long drawn out, and so meandering about— 
just like this—to make the reader grieve and look 
around for a reprieve! 

Or to leave 

Short just like that. (Who the deuce is Genevieve? 

Is she dark or is she fair? 

Has she straight or curly hair?) 

But why should such mere details peeve? 

No man knoweth anything about any female child of Eve. 

At her verses I will heave 

At random, hoping something to conceive ; 

Something that's called Genevieve; 

Trusting some I may deceive 
And my poetic powers retrieve. 

(Who the deuce is Genevieve? 

Glad her name is not Cassandra, 

Zenobia or Polyandra.) 

I’ve no more rhymes up my sleeve. 

So, fare you well, sweet Genevieve. 

JESSIE S. MINER. 

Saint Genevieve, what do your brooding eyes 
See in the city of your heart to-day ? 

404 


THE WANDERER 


Your enigmatic Paris, who defies 

Empires and peoples. ’Tis her whim to play 
With princes, thrones and statesmen. Red cockades 
Have bloomed like roses on her walls and blood 
Has flowed in scarlet ribbons down her streets; 

But still she rises from the crimson flood 
Wayward and glad and smiling in the sun. 

Saint Genevieve, to this our world made new 
Can you not wake her soul? Lips that are dumb 
Turn now for mediation unto you. 

A hungry world has asked for peace and food 

While nations in council bartered land for greed. 

A weary world has cried for brotherhood. 

Your city heard, dear Saint, but did she heed? 

Great men have moved their pawns; but little men 
Who blindly lived, died in blind faith to free 
Their homes from war and bloodshed. Rouse for them 
The conference now gathered at your knee. 


REBIRTH 


ALOYSIUS COLL. 

N OT yet the demon thunderbolt. 

Shot deep enough to stun 
Our eagle in the cloud or break 
His feathers in the sun! 


Whatever monster oozes up 
From shaken land or sea 
To chew the leaves or gore the root 
Of our serenity. 


We’ll still go out with sack and urn 
To bend the sheaf and bough, 
405 


THE WANDERER 


Gather the wheat and pluck the grape 
And plum, as we do now! 

For we that make of mine and well 
A treadway to the light 
Have no apology for age, 

Or truce to make with night! 

For we that melt a rose the breath 
That moves a woman’s hair, 

Have found a million chains of gold 
To bind and keep it there! 

For us the demon thunderbolt 

Come rattling down the skies 
Is but a moving sun to spread 
The vision of our eyes ! 

We are not yet a ghost of junk, 

Rebuilt of limb and girth— 

We’ve only pinched the skin of half 
The mighty gifts of earth! 

EGMONT A. ARENS, New York. 

It’s pathetic the way men come back to Christ! 
Just as He said, 

The meek will inherit the earth. 

First, there is much talk of honor, 

And pride, and rights, 

In every church the priests teach hate, 

And tell how they couldn’t believe in a Christ. 
Who wouldn’t fight. 

But you can’t stick a bayonet into human flesh 
In Christ’s name, 

And you can’t mangle and strangle, 

406 


THE WANDERER 

And let loose death and destruction 
In a thousand horrible forms, 

And keep Jesus’ blessing; 

You just forget that church stuff, 

And let loose. 

It’s pathetic the way men come back to Christ! 
Over in Europe are a million graves, 

Marked with humble wooden crosses. 

ALDEN W. WELCH. 

What! do we fear the future, 

We who are growing old. 

Whose failing eyes see specters 

Where there are shapes of gold; 
Whose fainting ears hear weeping 
Instead of Faith’s sure laugh, 

Whose withered lips taste acid 
When there is wine to quaff? 

Take heart! The tramp of armies 
No longer shakes the earth, 

The cannon’s roar is silenced; 

Just listen to the mirth 
That rises from the children, 

Who play in field and street; 

To them there is no vict’ry 
And there is no defeat. 

Their wiry little bodies 

Are building for the load 
That we have gathered for them 
To carry down the road; 

And they will lift the burden 
And fling it far away 
Into the night in which we died, 

For they were born of day. 

407 


THE WANDERER 


Each generation swells with wrong, 

And Sorrow is its bed, 

On which it writhes and sighs and moans, 

Haunted by all the dead. 

Each generation gives its life 
Upon a bed of pain; 

A long-drawn sigh, a moment’s rest, 

And it is born again. 

JAMES MARSHALL. 

Orange harvest moon slashed in the gray horizon; 
Anguished nude boughs weeping, their wan arms upward ; 
Gray tears dripping on gray ground— 

Life. 

The moon waxes, 

Faint golden elves dart on grass tips, 

Trunks and limbs sway in rhythm. 

In the far-off paling corner, a twin moon 
Smiles through the ripples of a. leaf-shadowed pond. 
Tears are dry and earth smiles 
With song of blade against blade, 

With paeans of wind-caressing tree tops, 

With joy of new life coming. 

Waxes still the moon, 

And laughs with passage of night. 

The pond, and the hill, and the road, smile 
And laugh, 

And hold their sides 
With knowing 
A better world looms. 

BURNS LEE. 

Ten thousand Phoenix-birds may rise 
From out the ash of a yesterday 
408 


THE WANDERER 


To soar among the morning skies 

And taste the wind in their olden way; 
To feel the surge 
Of the ego urge, 

But each one once more dies. 

Despite the garish dream that lies 
To some degree in every soul, 

The dream that would dissolve the ties 
That bind man to the living whole— 
Despite that thing, 

Comes every spring, 

And whither flies? 

But, ah, in answer to such cries 
You say that every spring returns; 

A rebirth lights the deadened eyes; 

A greenness fills the darkened urns. 

But is this year 
The one held dear, 

And not the one you may despise ? 

Rebirth ? A word of hollow lies ; 

A painted toy for the sick child, World; 
A plaything loaded with glad surmise; 

A scroll of promise that’s not unfurled. 
But from the dawn 
The child coos on 

Up to the last of his sleepy sighs. 

MAY STRANAHAN. 

Along the Asphodelian way 

’Tis said that life and death are one; 
There is no dawning of the day, 

Nor any setting of the sun. 

409 


THE WANDERER 


Nor time nor space are any more, 

For none are born, nor do they die; 

There is no after nor before, 

All things in one great calmness lie. 

We do not die on that green shore. 

Nor anyone a birth time knows; 

There is no less, nor any more, 

But all in one fulfillment flows. 

All things to us a seeming are, 

All things are but the type and proof 

That trembling to us from afar 

Come presage of the eternal truth. 

Yet not from far, for all is here, 

Did we but only wake to know, 

All fixed within our spirit’s sphere 
That seems to us to come and go. 

We do not die, nor are we born, 

Only our souls in slumber dream. 

Till waking to the eternal morn 
We know instead of seem. 


WAS SIR ROGER CASEMENT A 
TRAITOR? 

“The dead who die for Ireland are the only live men 
in Ireland. The rest is cattle. Freedom is kept alive 
in man's blood only by the shedding of that blood ” 

—Sir Roger Casement in “The Crime Against Ireland.” 

EAMON DE VALERA, President of the Irish Republic. 

N O Irishman owes any allegiance to England. Every 
Irishman who is loyal to his own country is necessarily 
opposed to the interests of any country that tries to keep 

410 


THE WANDERER 


his in subjection. His opponents will be certain to call his 
acts traitorous but the word is really inequable. An Irish¬ 
man can be a traitor only to Ireland. Sir Roger Casement 
sought to obtain freedom for Ireland and is adjudged a trai¬ 
tor by the English people. What England says of him is 
only what England said of Washington, Jefferson, and their 
comrades in 1776. 

In 1788 Washington wrote, “Patriots of Ireland! Cham¬ 
pions of liberty in all lands!—be strong in hope! Your 
cause is identical with mine. You are calumniated in your 
day; I was misrepresented by the loyalists in my day. Had 
I failed the scaffold would be my doom. But now my 
enemies pay me honor. Had I failed I would have deserved 
the same honor. I stood true to my cause, even when vic¬ 
tory had fled. In that I merited success.” 

ROBERT BRENNAN, Sinn Fein Director of Propaganda, 
Dublin, Ireland. 

Casement’s offense was exactly that of Washington and 
Franklin, who sought aid from England’s enemy for their 
country’s fight for independence. He merely followed the 
footsteps of Ireland’s patriots down through the ages. The 
O’Neills sought aid from Spain when Spain was England’s 
enemy. Tone and Emmet sought the aid of France when 
France was England’s enemy, and Casement sought the aid 
of Germany when Germany was England’s enemy, realizing 
the truth in the words of the English historian Froude, that 
“The Irish were not to be blamed if they looked to Spain, 
to France, to any friend on earth or in Heaven, to deliver 
them from a power which discharged no single duty that 
rulers owe to subjects.” 

His own people will keep Casement’s memory green as 
they have those of Wolfe Tone, Robert Emmet and the hun¬ 
dreds of Irish patriots whom England has hanged as 
traitors. 

411 


THE WANDERER 


DAVID MACINTOSH. 

It requires a different mind from mine, with peculiar 
grooves of thinking, to conclude that the hanging of Sir 
Roger Casement in a London jail in August, 1916, for high 
treason was undeserved. Even the most ardent Sinn Feiner 
in Ireland, or the United States, dealing in perfect honesty 
with the facts could not escape affirming the sentence and 
its due execution. He had been seeking to rouse Irish pris¬ 
oners in Germany to join an Irish brigade in mutiny against 
Great Britain in what was then a struggle that involved her 
possible downfall and the consequent subjection, even of 
America to the Kaiser. Next he lands from a German sub¬ 
marine at Tralee. It was accompanied by a German tramp 
steamer carrying a cargo of arms to be used in an Irish 
revolt. He was captured, indicted for “adhering to the 
King’s enemies elsewhere than in the King’s realm, to-wit, 
the Empire of Germany.” Before Lord Reading, later spe¬ 
cial envoy to America, and two other judges and a jury, he 
was tried and convicted. He heard the testimony with com¬ 
posure and finally made an impassioned but illogical speech, 
seeking to palliate his own frightful crime by allusion to Sir 
Edward Carson and the Ulster troubles. He argued that 
his peers had not tried him because he recognized no coun¬ 
try but Ireland. 

But this misguided man had long served England in her 
consular service, had accepted knighthood from her. He 
knew the long existent relations with Great Britain were 
faits accomplis, at least so established as not then to be trea¬ 
sonably severed when as brave Irishmen were fighting in 
Flanders. Sympathy was naturally the sequence of his dar¬ 
ing and devotion to a wrong-timed cause, but Lord Reading 
defined the differentiation betwen justice and mercy and the 
necessary sequence the one has to the other. Never was trea¬ 
son more overt nor odious nor fraught with direr conse¬ 
quences to England and America. No government could 

413 


THE WANDERER 


afford in the exigency to be lenient, unless mental unbalance 
were pleaded, instead of defiance, and false Irish heroism 
sought to be substituted for the genuine displayed before the 
German armies. Then there was the subterranean nature 
of the attack in the rear. 

If the individual can elevate himself above the law when¬ 
ever his views of “the state of the Union” excite him then 
lynch law and mobs and all crimes in last analysis can easily 
find justification and anarchy, concrete or philosophical, is 
realized. Some examples of patriotic sacrifice stand in the 
idol rooms of nations, but compassion over law violation 
that resembles garroting a country in dire extremity is 
mawkish and tends to chaos. A German Empire with 
world dominion recognizing an Irish Republic would be a 
vision only conjured by a drug addict. 

FRANK P. WALSH. 

Not unless Nathan Hale was a traitor! 

Roger Casement was an Irish patriot. He not only owed 
no allegiance to England, but that country was in a state 
of war with the Irish Nation—his country. I had the rare 
privilege of reading his last words to the clergyman who at¬ 
tended him in his dying moments. 

Notwithstanding the English effort to blacken his name, 
his grave is as stainless as Wolfe Tone’s, Emmet’s, the 
Pearse brothers’, James Connolly’s and the splendid company 
of Irishmen whose memories will live always in the hearts 
of lovers of human liberty. 

HELEN FAULKNER. 

Some historians have tried to excuse Benedict Arnold on 
the ground that he was driven to desperation by the extrava¬ 
gance of his young wife, whom he dearly loved, and the im¬ 
portunities of his creditors, which caused him to fall victim 

4*3 


THE WANDERER 

to British bribes. In the same way, an attempt has even 
been made to explain away Judas’ betrayal of his Master, 
by stating that he expected a miracle would bring about the 
release of Jesus. We know that he bitterly repented his act, 
but suffered the penalty therefor. 

Sir Roger Casement’s treason has been condoned by his 
supporters, who claim that he was insane, and urge the fact 
of his previous services to the Government as proof that he 
could not have committed a crime so despicable. However, 
he was caught red-handed, and British justice, which moves 
with a somewhat swifter pace than the American brand, 
soon exacted the extreme penalty for his criminal deed. We 
know that Arnold, too, had been a patriot before he became 
a traitor, and had fought bravely for the American cause; 
nevertheless, after his downfall, realizing the esteem in 
which he was held by his countrymen, he served under the 
English flag, carrying death and destruction wherever he 
went. 

Ireland has been a thorn in the flesh for many years, and 
while England generally favors home rule for Ireland, they 
believe this concession would simply precipitate civil war, 
for which they would hold themselves responsible. We all 
know the fate of the peacemaker who interferes in a family 
row, hence, in this particular instance, discretion is unques¬ 
tionably the better part of valor. The Irish are a fighting 
race, but they generally fight fair. Casement was the ex¬ 
ception to the general rule, and he deserved the punishment 
meted out to him. 

WILLIAM H. LACEY. 

The question is somewhat like asking whether a shield is 
concave or convex. It may be either, depending upon the 
point of view. In the struggles between subject and domi¬ 
nant nationalities, patriots of the weaker are always the 
traitors of the other; conquering heroes of the oppressors 
are ever the trampling tyrants of the oppressed. 

4H 


THE WANDERER 


In passing judgment upon men like Roger Casement, we 
who are holden neither to England nor to Ireland must 
nevertheless take either the English or the Irish point of 
view. Which one we choose shall judge ourselves, and set 
us either with the Partisans of Empire or with the Friends 
of Freedom, in the opposing, and irreconcilable, camps of 
men. 

Roger Casement was, and must ever be, a traitor to the 
English and the English-minded—the Imperial party, wher¬ 
ever found; he is, and shall always be, a patriot to the Irish 
and the Irish-hearted—the party of freedom, of whatever 
blood. No American, except hypocritically, can bestow the 
name of patriot upon George Washington and deny it to 
Roger Casement; no man can call Roger Casement a traitor 
without in his heart believing George Washington the same. 
The parallel between Washington and Casement is ex¬ 
tremely close, even to the fact that each, in his earlier years, 
had served the power against which he afterwards rebelled. 
And that power, that ultimate foe, was the same for each. 

Only in the outcome of their rebellions do the lines of 
their likeness greatly diverge. Washington won, and he is 
held in the hearts of a free people as their liberator. Case¬ 
ment failed, but he is reverenced as their martyr by a people 
striving to be free. In principle, there is no difference be¬ 
tween them. 

When Ireland shall have achieved her national freedom, 
we may expect to see Roger Casement’s executioners offer to 
his spirit the same obsequious but hollow homage, which 
now, for profit’s sake, they pay to the memory of Washing¬ 
ton. That day shall come. 

“As we are, though she is not, 

As we are, shall Banba be— 

There is no King can rule the wind; 

There is no fetter for the sea.” 


4i5 


THE WANDERER 


WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BE¬ 
TWEEN THE DEMOCRATIC 
AND REPUBLICAN PARTIES? 

“The magnificent and the ridiculous are so near neigh¬ 
bors that they touch each other ” 

—Edward Lord Oxford. 

R. F. PETTIGREW, Ex-Senator. 

T HERE has been no difference in principle between the 
platforms of the two old parties for many years. I was 
chairman of the sub-committee on the tariff and helped pre¬ 
pare the platform of the Democratic party in 1908. That 
platform contains some differences, such as with regard 
to the acquisition of colonies in our march of the course 
of empire, but since that time there are certainly no differ¬ 
ences between the two platforms. They are both either 
prepared or submitted for approval to the same combina¬ 
tion of financial interests in New York, where the real 
government of the United States is located. 

A few days after Taft was nominated in 1912, I visited 
ex-President Roosevelt at his residence at Oyster Bay. He 
told me he was going to run as an independent candidate 
for President of the United States, and asked if I would 
support him. I told him I thought not; that there certainly 
was no sense in his running, and that all he would accom¬ 
plish would be the election of Woodrow Wilson, which 
would be a national disaster, and gave my reasons. He then 
said: 

“You know, as well as I do, that there is no difference 
between the two parties. If there is anything to be accom¬ 
plished to save this Republic, a new political party is ab¬ 
solutely necessary, because the contest between the two old 

416 


THE WANDERER 

parties is but a sham battle, the same elements dominating. 
I propose to organize that new third party, and while 
we will not win this year, four years from now we will 
elect the President. And we may just as well suffer four 
years under Wilson as four years under Taft/’ I replied 
that Taft was amiable imbecility, and Wilson was vicious 
and malicious imbecility. I also said “Roosevelt, if you 
mean that, I will support you if your platform suits me 
thereupon, he asked me what I wanted in the platform; 
we sat down and that afternoon practically wrote the plat¬ 
form. He said: 

“Now will you support me ?” to which I replied: 

“If your convention adopts that platform, I will support 
you/’ 

But Roosevelt failed to follow up the new party plan, al¬ 
though he received over 4,000,000 votes. He abandoned 
that great movement in the same way that he abandoned 
every other great movement in the interests of democracy 
and the people, with which, from time to time, he had 
identified himself. 

The necessity for the new party is greater this year 
than ever, for the two great parties are certainly now car¬ 
rying on a campaign under the direction, more than ever, 
of the dominating forces of this Government in New York. 
Their platforms this year, as in the past, will be alike in 
all essentials, and where they differ will be simply done to 
camouflage the public. 

They are both owned by the capitalists and controlled by 
their lawyers, who are trained to believe that it is the right 
of property that is sacred and not the rights of man. 

KNUTE NELSON, United States Senator from Minne* 
sota. 

The difference between their history, records and creeds, 
which is a long chapter. 


417 


THE WANDERER 


CHARLES E. LANG. 

The difference between the Republican and Democratic 
parties is that the Republicans have always given us efficient 
and economic Government, while the Democrats have failed 
in these particulars. 

CHARLES EDWARD RUSSELL. 

Easy money. Neither platform has been adopted yet, 
but that is unimportant. I can write both now as they 
will be when adopted. The difference between them will 
be exactly the difference between two peas, two little neck 
clams, or two grains of wheat hid in two bushels of chaff. 

You can search all day ere you can find it and when you 
have found it it is not worth a hoot in perdition. Neither 
of them will have the slightest importance, significance or 
use to any human being except the printers, that have to 
set them up and the proof readers that must read them. 

Meantime the housewife, noting her weekly grocery bills, 
has one end of an issue a million times greater than all 
the bosh, bunk and rotten old twaddle that will be written 
into these platforms, and there isn’t a politician in the 
United States who has the courage of a fly to tackle it. 
What do you know about that? 

GEORGE CARTWRIGHT. 

“What is the difference between the Democratic and Re¬ 
publican parties?” Well, this is some nut for a “nut” to 
crack 

Knowing, perhaps, less about it than you do, but not 
being so frank to admit how little I know, I made inquiry, 
and was told the difference in Cle/eland is about two 
hundred yards, i. e., the distance between the City Hall, 
controlled by Republicans, and the county Courthouse, under 
Democratic administration. 

418 


THE WANDERER 


WILLIAM J. MERITZER. 

Historically, there was a difference. Until about 20 
years ago, one was the representative of the monopolists 
in business enterprises; the other that of the small trader 
trying to rise from his economic class to that of the more 
powerful. 

All parties represent economic interests. Do their plat¬ 
forms indicate it? Neither claims to have a first mortgage 
on patriotism, honesty, or decency for there are too many 
black sheep at the head of both. As a friend put it: “The 
difference between them is just the same.” 

The Wanderer could hardly have asked a more per¬ 
plexing question, and it might well have been put to Herbert 
Hoover, who announces that he declines to commit him¬ 
self and declare allegiance to either one until he knows 
what they stand for. If Hoover is stumped, perhaps others 
can be excused. 

Large masses of men and women are of the opinion that 
the difference between the platforms in the past of the 
Republican and Democratic parties has represented the 
variance in their conception of how best to fool the people— 
that experience has proved that neither is bound by their 
statements—that platforms are meaningless, not intended 
to be translated into action. They have read more between 
the lines than on them. 

But this Presidental year will probably see a real differ¬ 
ence in platforms. The Republicans will want universal 
military training to keep the world safe for Democracy; 
the Democrats because they have not (quite) made it so, 
except in the good old U. S. The Democrats will prove 
that the war would have been won sooner if the Repub¬ 
licans had not obstructed so much, the Republicans that 
there would never have been a war at all had they been 
in power, etc., ad nauseam. 


419 


WILLIAM V. HARRIS. 

Allen McCurdy, secretary of the Committee of Forty- 
eight, talking about the Republican and Democratic parties, 
said they are like two bottles with different labels—beau¬ 
tiful labels, but there is nothing in either of the bottles. 
As I thought it over I began to realize that he had told 
the exact truth by a neat figure of speech. 

Neither of the parties has the courage to do more than 
talk. Generalities, generalities, generalities! Fine phrases 
that mean nothing. Camouflage for the old game of high 
finance which is going on all the time. If we vote for 
the Republican party the cost of living stays high, and 
if we vote for the Democratic party it doesn’t go down. 

The only difference between them is in a few words. 
Most of their “issues” are bunk. It makes no difference 
which one is in power—the poor pay the freight just the 
same. A plague on both your parties! Until butter comes 
down to 40 cents a pound I shall vote the Socialist ticket. 

W. R. RANEY. 

The technical development of the microscope has not 
progressed to the degree where it is able to distinguish the 
difference between the Republican and Democratic parties. 
They are twins. They are founded upon the principle that 
the right of private property is sacred and all of their 
activities, programs and propaganda are directed to that 
end. 

The chief distinction between the Democratic and Re¬ 
publican parties is that one is in and the other is out. The 
graft goes on the same. In this State, where the Re¬ 
publican party is always in, the Democratic politicians 
make more money than the Republicans and very properly 
they take good care that the Democratic party stays out. 

At one time it was supposed the Republican party favored 
high tariff and imperialism, while the Democratic party 

420 


THE WANDERER 

favored decentralization of government and free trade. 
Mr. Wilson spoiled all that. This Government is now 
the most imperial in the world, while the tariff caters to 
the people who make the most profits. 

The American voting public may elect a Republican 
administration this fall. The only change will be that 
Northern financiers and manufacturers will maintain the 
Congressional lobbies rather than the Southern. Profiteer¬ 
ing will continue merrily. The new Attorney General 
will issue a statement every evening that he is about to 
prosecute, and io people will live in four rooms, where 
three lived before. 

CHARLES A. POTH. 

The world has moved rapidly since the Bull Moose 
party catapulted the Democratic party into power. The 
fundamental problems of social existence have come to 
the front very forcibly. These new questions are not 
political, but economical, and as economical problems, 
their nature has changed. 

The great questions of the present day and which the 
political parties must face, pertain to distribution of the 
products of industry. People are not so much interested 
in the quantity of things produced as the size of their own 
particular share—hence the every-day discussion of wages, 
profits, profiteering, freight rates, prices, concrete expres¬ 
sions of the problems of distribution. 

Which of the two parties will be more successful in 
meeting the new situation? The Republican party has an 
enviable history of constructive work. Though their course 
was by no means free from criticism, they did attain many 
objects with startling rapidity. 

The Democrats have had undisputed control of the 
country during three Congresses. Little constructive work 
is to their credit. In fact, look about in any direction 

421 


THE WANDERER 


and we see nothing but vain boasting as to what will be 
done, from the league of nations down to Palmer’s mar¬ 
velous reduction of the high cost of living. 

The Democratic party has gone further than our most 
repressive Tory ever dreamed of going in denying the 
fundamental rights of the people. Such an orgy of sup¬ 
pression of thought, ideas, and speech was never experi¬ 
enced before, and as a side show to this three-ringed circus, 
the administration permitted the most drastic sumptuary 
law of all history—war-time prohibition, and later the 
amendment, to be tobogganed through our lawmaking chan¬ 
nels without even a shadow of a vote of the people—a 
law which would have been opposed by a majority of the 
voters if they had been given a chance. 

The Republican party was always equipped with vital 
programs of action, and respectful of fundamental rights. 
If it runs true to type it should have a more definite and 
practical program than its rival. 

JOHN M. HENRY. 

The Republican party believes in entrusting government 
to specially designated classes who will make prosperity 
and benevolently pass it on to the people. We have a con¬ 
centrated commercial wealth dependent upon privileges 
which the Government can confer or destroy. The Re¬ 
publican party considers the wishes of this centralized 
wealth. 

The Democratic party in its true state takes the op¬ 
posite position. The Democratic organization has many 
times wandered away from Democratic principles. Indeed, 
the Southern wing of the Democratic organization is aris¬ 
tocratic, privilege-seeking, and does not represent the true 
Democracy. 

On the other hand, the political principles of Abraham 
Lincoln and Thomas Jefferson were almost the same, and 

422 


THE WANDERER 


the modern Republican platforms are no more like the 
principles of Lincoln than certain Southern activities and 
other activities in the Democratic organization ranks are 
representative of Democratic principles, which have sur¬ 
vived from the beginning of the Republic to the present. 
The Encyclopedia Britannica says as to the Democratic 
party, “It stands nearest the people/’ 


WAS TOLSTOI A PROPHET? 

“Thy voice sounds like a prophet 9 s word; 

And in its hollow tones are heard 
The thanks of millions yet to be 99 

—Fitz-Greene Halleck, in “Marco.” 

WILLIAM MARION REEDY, Editor, Reedy's Mirror , 
St. Louis. 

Y ES; Tolstoi was, and is, a prophet, and, in “Anna 
Karenina” and “War and Peace,” a great artist. I 
don’t know but that he was right also in “What Is Art ?” for 
surely that cannot be great art that does not ultimately 
serve the good. 

What is a prophet? He is one who perceives the work¬ 
ing of law in human affairs and proclaims its ultimate 
effects. He is one who knows the human heart for good 
or ill, and the spiritual in man, and declares their ends. 

For example: Tolstoi in his attitude on the land question 
shows his sense of the working of all conditions to the re¬ 
tardation of progress. Land monopoly foundations all 
our economic and many of our social ills. Its destruction 
means liberation of men from servitude to the few. Tolstoi 
knew that some day all men would see this even as he saw 
it. 

So, too, as to the Tolstoian doctrine of non-resistance, 

423 


THE WANDERER 


or rather the Savior’s doctrine: “Resist not evil.” I can 
see his logic thus: The immutable law works steadily, in 
his view, to ends of peace, else this whole creation is a 
promise made to be unfulfilled. Man is subject to that 
law and cannot change it. He can only conform to it, or 
vainly oppose it. Conforming, he assists its operation. 

Why war with other men who are as much subject to 
law as one’s self? Why try to conquer others? The in¬ 
dividual must master himself. When all do this, all are 
reasonable and considerate and kind, and conflict ceases. 
That is a long way off, but it is rational to suppose that 
it is a long way we are going to the race’s Tipperary, 
and long though the way, and distant the goal, it is well 
to start now, and start right, and know our destination. 

So as to Tolstoi’s view of marriage in “The Kreutzer 
Sonata.” There is a possibility of debasement in marriage, 
though developing within it the selfish and the sensual, in 
making of it a bond of lower rather than higher nature. 
If in his book Tolstoi failed to stress the fact that many 
of the higher things of life are rooted in and flower from 
the baser, the almost superhuman things that have come 
up with us from the slime, he only erred as do those who 
would, like Rousseau, have us give play freely to all natural 
promptings. Tolstoi is the child of Rousseau, and Rous¬ 
seau was father as well to Nietzsche—for Rousseau also, 
in effect, preached the superman “beyond good and evil.” 

The problem of evil is not so easily soluble as Tolstoi 
imagines, but at least he realizes its stupendous character 
to the extent of saying it is useless to fight it with weapons 
of the flesh. He would fight it through the strengthening of 
the individual spirit to repel its invasion and capture of the 
individual’s inner kingdom. 

Tolstoi believed men should be masters of themselves, 
without becoming slaves to their worse selves, and so 
rejected outer authority, which all men know is an evil, 
though they call it necessary. That means freedom, and 

424 


THE WANDERER 


if there be ills in >such freedom as we have attained, the 
cure is more freedom in wider and deeper knowledge. 
The free spirit he means, not the free fleshliness. And this 
is the extent of Tolstoi’s anarchism. 

So far as we know freedom, we know it works toward 
peace and love. That is the way Tolstoi saw things. He 
saw them deep and far and their workings, mainly, toward 
the heights of which man is capable. He proclaimed no 
miracles. He was a seer of the workings of the law—a 
prophet of what must be, if God be not what Heine called 
him—the “Aristophanes of Heaven.” 

EMANUEL REICHER, Producer of the “Power of 
Darkness.” 

Is Tolstoi a prophet? In the play “Power of Darkness,” 
produced with great success by the Theatre Guild at the 
Garrick Theatre under my direction, Tolstoi voices his 
ideas through the mouth of the old peasant Akim. “God 
told us to work and you, you put your money into the 
bank and the money will feed you, while you sleep. This 
is filthy, that’s what I call it, it’s not right.” Tolstoi, who 
left the easy life to which he was born, to join his fellow- 
men and like them till the soil taught us to work for our 
living and not let our money work for us. Work and be 
happy, this was his message. 

If you mean by a prophet a man who sees into the fu¬ 
ture, Tolstoi was a prophet, for there is a universal tend¬ 
ency in Europe to look to work for rescue from this world 
of strife. He also is a real Christian, a true follower of 
Christ. This man, working side by side with the peasants 
living, not only preaching the gospel “Love thy neighbour 
and thy enemy” taught us that this really makes us happy 
on this earth and that this gospel does not interfere with the 
struggle of existence and the will to live. He forsaw, 
perhaps more clearly than any one else, that loving, not 

425 


THE WANDERER 


being loved, makes happy, and that hating, not being hated, 
makes people unhappy. It is not the person being hated 
who is harmed but it is the envious and jealous person 
who ruins his own life. In this too, he showed his power 
of prophecy for is not the whole world coming around to 
the idea of the brotherhood of man? (League of Nations.) 
This then is his prophecy: “Work and universal love will 
bring happiness to mankind/’ 

ROLAND HOLT, Director of the New York Drama 
League and Oratorio Society of New York and Vice- 
President of Henry Holt Company, Publishers. 

Was Tolstoi a prophet? 

Tolstoi wrote one or two big novels, but I cannot see 
that he was worthy of ranking as a prophet. 

He lingered in his writings on things about which most 
civilized people are more reticent, as in the long scene of 
child-birth in “War and Peace,” and the very long act in 
“The Power of Darkness” devoted to the birth and murder 
of an illegitimate child. 

Weaklings attracted him. Witness the principal men in 
both “The Living Corpse” (better known as “Redemption”) 
and in “The Power of Darkness.” 

His ethics were at times weird. In the first of these 
plays, the husband rather than sully himself by the ap¬ 
pearance of sin, makes it possible for his wife to inno¬ 
cently commit bigamy—in fact intends that she shall. In 
the second play, a man who has seduced three women 
and taken part in two murders, saves his soul by betraying 
two of the women publicly to their husbands! 

His own countryman, Andreyoff, in his play, “The Beau¬ 
tiful Sabine Women,” deliciously satirizes Tolstoi’s doc¬ 
trine of non-resistance or pacificism. 

In “War and Peace” Tolstoi closes the novel with a very 
lengthy argument, trying to prove that commanders are of 

426 


THE WANDERER 


no importance in wars, but that the victories are won by 
the men in the ranks. 

REV. A. T. CARR. 

“Was Tolstoi a prophet ?” I answer without hesitation, 
yes—like all prophets years in advance of the prevailing 
customs and ideas of his time. And like all prophets, a 
champion of justice and a lover of humanity. 

Those who label this grand and beautiful spirit “anar¬ 
chist”, do not really understand him, and thereby do him 
an immeasurable injustice. 

If Tolstoi opposed governments it was because govern¬ 
ments had been the friend of the strong and mighty, and 
had backed up the claims of the strong and mighty by 
physical force. In lieu of this Tolstoi suggested morality 
and humanity. Even Jesus said, “They that take the sword 
shall perish by the sword.” 

No one has ever been a more devout believer in God and 
His Son Jesus, than Tolstoi. “I do not live while I lose 
faith in the existence of God. I only really live when 
I seek Him,” he says. And when he came into the full 
realization of God in his life, he says, “Life rose up within 
me and round me, and the light that then shone forth never 
left me afterwards.” 

His literal interpretation of the words of Jesus may 
not all be accepted by us, and yet he lived them and never 
suffered for so doing. A few of his interpretations we 
may not accept, but they are few in comparison with the 
one great message so splendidly interpretated to the world, 
that of love, in the name of Christ, for humanity. And 
if Tolstoi broke with the church, it was because the church 
had broken with his Christ in its larger and grosser mis¬ 
interpretation of the life of God to the world. 

The fact that he has been brutally abused as an arch 
heretic, and that in these days of mental and moral tur¬ 
moil, churchmen and men of large business interests are 

427 


THE WANDERER 

evidencing a broader vision in regard to these very hu¬ 
man relationships, so passionately advocated by Tolstoi, 
proves him to be one of the greatest prophets the world 
has ever had. 

REV. THOMAS J. GLYNN, St. Joseph’s Hospital. 

Tolstoi was a prophet in his own country. He not only 
foretold the success of the great revolution that is now being 
consummated by the Russian people, but he exemplified his 
vision by his example and practice of the eternal moral law 
of self-sacrifice in devoting his life to the uplift of the 
Russian peasantry. He divided his vast estate among them. 

Tolstoi was no radical extremist. In fact, he believed in 
non-resistance and moral suasion. Against the violence and 
terrorism the extremists of his day wished to practice, he de¬ 
clared : “He who thinks he can violate the will of God for 
an immediate good is short-sighted. Never, for any mo¬ 
ment, can the will of God be thwarted and good obtained.” 
In his great vision he foresaw only the universal welfare of 
the people, the brotherhood of man and the fatherhood of 
God. 

Once he solved the problem of man’s relation to God and 
man’s relation to his fellow men, he taught man’s divine and 
natural right to the land. That the Russian people must be 
permitted to work out their own destiny. The Russian peo¬ 
ple appreciated that a great prophet had lived among them 
and for them. Their first act after the revolution was to 
make a sacred pilgrimage to Zakaz forest, Tolstoi’s burial 
place, and place a laurel wreath upon his grave. The pil¬ 
grims cried aloud: “The will of God is being established; 
reason is awakened in man; love towards neighbor, nay, 
greatest of all human love, love towards enemies, is being 
accomplished. The province of God reigns among His peo¬ 
ple.” 

About Tolstoi, the man, a few words ought to be written. 

428 


THE WANDERER 


Owing to his descriptions of immoral scenes and plots, good 
taste condemned him, especially in our country. Few men 
ever have held the mirror up to nature as he did. It was 
claimed that his motive was to condemn vice and immorality 
in high places and to exalt the survival of good over evil. 
His mother dying when he was young, he was taken in 
charge by a worldly-minded aunt, who imprudently advised 
him “to sow his wild oats while he was young.” He then 
proceeded to live the loose life led by the gay, young, mili¬ 
tary officer of his day. However, in the last period of his 
life he turned to God, regretted the realism of his early writ¬ 
ings, and gave strict orders that they should be destroyed. 

He spent his last days in labor, meditation, and prayer. 
Among his sayings are the following: “There is something 
in me that makes me think that I was not born to be like 
everybody else. The man who has no other goal except his 
own happiness is a bad man. He whose goal is the good 
opinion of others is a weak man. He whose goal is the 
happiness of others is a virtuous man. He whose goal is 
God is a great man.” 


WILL ENGLAND BECOME A 
LABOR REPUBLIC? 


“Let wealth and commerce , laws and learning die, 
But leave us still our old nobility” 

—Lord John Manners in “England’s Trust.” 

CHARLES P. SCOTT, Editor, The Manchester Guardian, 
Manchester, England. 

W ILL England become a Labor Republic? Not within 
any forseeable time. It may quite soon have a 
predominantly Labor Government. 

429 


THE WANDERER 

JAMES RAMSAY MACDONALD, M. P. 

No. We may have a Labor Government, but it will 
not create a republic. To be quite candid with the American 
readers, the violent and unreasonable suppression of a 
class of unpopular political opinion which by brightening 
sections of the American public, is inducing them to depart 
from the straight road of liberalism, is making the liberal 
and radical sections of the Old World see that liberty is 
as secure under a Constitutional Monarchy as under a 
Republic. The Labor Party is out for changes which 
mean something real. Of course, if the old ruling classes 
here were to force a revolution (and their follies will 
hardly amount to that) there would be a republic, but no 
party in this country will make that change for its own 
sake. In our politics, nationalization of the mines means 
something, the ending of the monarchy means nothing. 

NORMAN ANGELL. 

I should think it is extremely unlikely that England 
will ever, in any time that need concern us, call herself a 
Labor Republic. She is quite likely to retain her King 
for a long time, and she is unlikely in describing her 
constitution to apply words like “Socialist” and “Labor.” 

All such words imply a formulation of definite political 
theories and doctrines about which English people have 
always been supremely indifferent. But if you are con¬ 
cerned with realities rather than names, it is almost cer¬ 
tain that the socializing tendency so evident during the last 
ten years, will grow. 

The mines and railways will almost certainly be taken 
from private ownership and transferred definitely to the 
community in one form or other. You will note that I 
do not use the word “nationalization,” which is almost 
meaningless. In place of the centralized bureaucracy mak- 
430 


THE WANDERER 


ing part of the state machinery, they are more likely to 
be managed by an organization of the workers, including 
the technicians, acting under a mandate from the state and 
responsible to it. Direct state management there is not 
likely to be. Many of the functions of distribution will 
be taken over increasingly by the rapidly growing co¬ 
operative societies. Here again, this will not mean nation¬ 
alization, nor even in the more generally accepted sense 
of the term, socialism. 

Indeed, it is quite conceivable that we might see a bitter 
conflict between the great co-operative societies (which 
are non-state) and the municipalities, over the question of 
municipal stores and shops. You will certainly see both 
municipal trading and co-operative trading develop. The 
Industrial Co-operative Movement is the one form of so¬ 
cialization—if you call it such—which has been a most 
indubitable success in the commercial sense; the one method 
of solving the problem of profiteering which has been 
worked. Yet there are many socialists who object to the 
industrial co-operative societies as a pusillanimous com¬ 
promise with capitalism. 

You will see, therefore, that it is impossible to answer 
your question with a yes or no, until one knows definitely 
what the words Labor Republic mean. 

“Republicanism” is a thing, by the way, which leaves 
ninety-nine Englishmen out of a hundred completely cold. 
It is not an issue in English Labor politics, not because 
Labor men have any affection for the millinery and flunkey- 
ism of royalism, but because the leaders are aware that 
the introduction of the issue would tend to divert atten¬ 
tion from the things that matter, the more practical issues, 
to discussion of mere dress or outside appearance of the 
situation. We are aware that royalty has a certain social 
importance—it has very little political importance—hostile 
to Labor—but on the whole a decreasing one. You may 
have, as in certain of the Scandinavian States, for in- 

431 


THE WANDERER 


stance, the most highly developed form of applied socialism, 
under the figure-head of monarchy. Indeed, it has a 
certain utility in satisfying those who are frightened mainly 
by names; certain dear folk would fight to the death to 
resist the edicts of a Soviet Republic, but who would 
swallow them without question if they came under the 
size manual of a hereditary monarch. 

Labor is sensible enough to be prepared to pay that 
price, if needs be, for a conciliation not obtainable other¬ 
wise. 

MAJOR JOHN EVELYN WRENCH, The English- 
Speaking Union, London. 

Undoubtedly British Labor is at last coming into its own 
and I believe that the British Labor Party will, in the 
course of the next three or four years exercise just as great 
an influence in British politics as the Australian Labor 
Party does in the politics of the great Commonwealth in 
far south. 

What is happening in Great Britain at the present time 
is that Labor is making a bid for the sympathy and sup¬ 
port of what is termed the “salariat” or “black-coated 
Labor”—in other words, the great bulk of the brain-workers 
in our large industrial and commercial enterprises. Labor 
no longer relies on the Trades Union officials to do its 
propaganda work, but it has enlisted a very able body of 
“intellectuals” who in season and out of season are preach¬ 
ing the doctrine of a co-operative commonwealth. 

The future alone can decide what modifications Labor 
will make in the British constitution when it comes into 
power, but at the present time the creation of a Republic 
in the British Isles is not a live issue, in fact, I believe 
that the British Monarchy will be the last one to survive. 
There is a great deal to be said in favor of a constitutional 
monarchy such as ours and I believe the majority of the 

432 


THE WANDERER 

British electorate regard the King in the light of a heredi¬ 
tary president and they would be sorry to abolish the 
Crown as they regard it as the one great connecting link 
between the free nations within the British Commonwealth. 

LORD BURNHAM, Owner, The Daily Telegraph, London. 

I beg to acknowledge the receipt of your letter asking 
whether I will send you an answer to the question you 
put: Will England become a labor republic? 

This would, I fear, be a question impossible to answer 
without writing an essay which you would, I am sure, be 
the first to reject. Disraeli once said: “There is no such 
thing as indiscreet question; there is only an indiscreet 
answer.” I am sure you will see how well this applies 
in this case. 

ARTHUR GLEASON. 

Britain will probably have a labor government long be¬ 
fore it touches the king. Indeed, it is quite possible we 
shall see in Britain a Socialist monarchy. The king is re¬ 
garded as a civil servant, busy at banquets and corner¬ 
stones. He also serves the same purpose as the flag, 
binding together loyalties, and offering himself as a symbol 
to be cheered and fought for. 

If the king steps down it will be difficult to invent a 
public official who will represent prestige to the races of 
India. As a “Rex” (ruler) he has no power. As a man 
he has considerable influence, but of a non-partisan mediat¬ 
ing sort. As a name and symbol he is valuable for a people 
flung out over one-quarter of the globe. 

Then, too, the English like to carry over remnants and 
rudiments of their long past into any fresh experiment. 
They like to make the new structure homey, with beams 
and bricks from the ancient building. In erecting the new 
democratic workers’ state, they feel more at ease in the 

433 


THE WANDERER 


early years if the king is around to lay the corner stone 
and to sit in at the family dinner. They are more used 
to him than they are to social scientists and doctrinaire 
reformers. He fits like an old shoe, and a sore thumb, 
and the grandfather with an old-age pension. 

Labor is unready to take over the Government, because 
it doubts its own capacity. As a group in Parliament, now 
of 65, later of 125, and then of 200, it will have power 
upon any coalition government, and can obtain reform leg¬ 
islation. It will probably be five years before a pure labor 
government is in full power. It will require 25 years 
to make the legislative changes and to digest them, for 
which the labor program calls. 

The old order is as dead as the feudal system. But 
the new order limps. England is living in the tired, irritable, 
muddled condition that follows supreme experience. It 
is a twilight zone in a Polar sea—gray, chill, melancholy. 
The young men are dead or hopeless. The land waits till 
the untouched boys grow up. Then there will come swift, 
drastic changes. 

ALGERNON LEE. 

As cabinet ministers say in replying to parliamentary 
interpellations, “The answer is in the affirmative.” 

The great period of British bourgeois statesmanship defi¬ 
nitely ended with the Boer War, 20 years ago. Since 
then parliamentary life has shown all the symptoms of 
senile paralysis, and responsible offices have been filled, at 
best, by clever politicians whose avowedly highest ideal is 
that of more or less successfully “muddling through” from 
one crisis to another. One is irresistibly reminded of the 
time when a French king said: “Oh, well, the old machine 
will last out our time.” 

The only big men in British public life these days are, 
in the first place, the leaders and spokesmen bred and 
brought forward by the labor organizations; and, in the 

434 


THE WANDERER 


second place, the rather numerous young intellectuals who 
are turning to the working class movement because only 
there do they see either the will or the capacity to look 
straight into the future and do whatever may need to 
be done. 

All this is not accidental. Ruling-class statesmanship is 
passing away and working-class statesmanship is coming 
to the front simply because economic development, and the 
intellectual development which results from it, are bring¬ 
ing us to the point where society no longer needs a ruling 
class. 

The social revolution will probably take a very different 
form in Great Britain from that which was forced upon 
it by abnormal circumstances in Eastern Europe. It may 
very likely be slower in its process, but it will not be less 
sure. 

WARREN S. STONE, Brotherhood of Locomotive En¬ 
gineers, Cleveland. 

Will England become a labor republic? I do not be¬ 
lieve England will become a labor republic, but in my 
opinion, the labor party will be in control in England within 
the next four years. 

ANDREW G. SMITH. 

No, England will not become a republic—at least not 
a labor republic—if by the latter is meant a Government 
dominated by any of the modern brands of Socialism. 

Why not a republic? The object of all present-day 
governments is to work out the ideals of democracy. Eng¬ 
land has obtained more democracy under her old form of 
government than any other Nation on earth. Nowhere 
else do the people rule so emphatically and directly as in 
England, and nowhere else are individual rights and liberty 
so loved and so respected. The people’s direct representa- 

435 


THE WANDERER 


tives, Parliament, govern. In England the noun government 
takes the plural verb. 

The royal family and the established church are old 
institutions and entirely harmless now. The English people 
love old things; love ceremony, decorations and titles. An¬ 
cient royalty and established religion contribute so much 
to gratify this taste that both are considered well worth 
all they cost. 

But there is a more substantial reason for the ruling 
family. The British Empire is not a federation of States 
as the United States of America. How could the Empire 
elect a President? To construct a British Republic would 
require the taking down and rebuilding of the entire struc¬ 
ture of empire. Moreover, no other public official is so 
little criticized by the fault-finding British public as the 
king. Hence why change? 

A word about a labor Government (not a labor re¬ 
public). A labor Government is a possibility in England. 
It would occasion neither shock nor revolution if it should 
come in the near future or in the far future. The Labor 
party and the Liberal party build their platform on the 
same fundamental base—free trade. True, the Labor party 
goes a step further in favor of nationalization of railroads 
and coal mines, but first and foremost the Labor party is 
loyal and patriotic. It seeks a square deal for labor, good 
wages and reasonable working conditions. It is not op¬ 
posed to the “wage system,” but supports it, and supports 
private capital as well. It is for constructive trades union¬ 
ism as against syndicalism or I. W. W.-ism. 

I was in Liverpool during the police strike last summer, 
and in London during the railroad strike of last fall. From 
the unmistakable sentiments manifested it may be said 
that Socialism in England, or the other isms of discontent 
do not spring up through the people, but consist of un¬ 
sound parlor vagaries wished upon some of the “workers” 
by such non-workers as Shaw, Wells and Kautsky. 

436 











